ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis
-
From [Nation] February 28, 2014. (https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/us-border-agents-intentionally-stepped-front-moving-vehicles-justify-shooting-them/)
US Border Agents Intentionally Stepped in Front of Moving Vehicles to Justify Shooting at Them
The Los Angeles Times obtained an internal review of US Border Patrol’s use-of-force policies, which US Customs and Border Protection has refused to release publicly (members of Congress have seen a summary). While the Times did not offer the report in full, the paper did publish previously unseen snippets that portray a law enforcement agency operating under loose use-of-force standards and little accountability.
The review was completed in February 2013 by the Police Executive Research Forum, a nonprofit that develops best practices for law enforcement use-of-force policies. It examined sixty-seven use-of-force incidents by federal border agents near the US-Mexico border that resulted in nineteen deaths.
Here are some key findings of the review, revealed by the Times Thursday:
Border Patrol agents have intentionally and unnecessarily stepped in front of moving cars to justify using deadly force against vehicle occupants.
Agents have shot in frustration across the US-Mexico border at rock throwers when simply moving away was an option.
Border Patrol demonstrates a “lack of diligence” in investigating incidents in which US agents fire their weapons.
It’s questionable whether Border Patrol “consistently and thoroughly reviews” incidents in which agents use deadly force.
The report is especially scathing in its critique of agents who’ve stood in front of moving vehicles, recommending that they “get out of the way…as opposed to intentionally assuming a position in front of such vehicles.” The authors add:
It should be recognized that a half-ounce (200-grain) bullet is unlikely to stop a 4,000-pound moving vehicle, and if the driver…is disabled by a bullet, the vehicle will become a totally unguided threat… Obviously, shooting at a moving vehicle can pose a risk to bystanders including other agents.
The report recommends that Border Patrol bar agents from shooting at vehicles unless their lives are threatened and also from firing at rock throwers. An internal response by Border Patrol, also obtained by the Los Angeles Times, rejected both these recommendations. The agency said a ban on shooting at rock throwers would endanger agents because they work “in rural or desolate areas, often alone, where concealment, cover and egress is not an option,” and that a ban on shooting vehicles would empower drug smugglers to run over agents. The response echoes statements made by Border Patrol chief Mike Fisher in November.
At least twenty-one people have been killed by Border Patrol agents working on the US-Mexico border since 2010. In 2012, agents shot at a 16-year-old boy multiple times in the back, killing him. The latest fatality happened this month, when a border agent near San Diego shot and killed an undocumented migrant for throwing rocks, one of which struck the agent in the head. In all these cases, it’s unknown as to whether any of the agents involved were disciplined, as CBP does not make that information public.
-
Geraldo Rivera apparently found the DOJ policy on defense against a car.
After some back and forth with Holmstrom, Rivera added, “Let me read one sentence. This is the use-of-force policy of the Department of Justice. Quote: ‘Agents may not fire at a moving car that is threatening them unless no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.‘ This is DOJ policy, signed off on by the country’s 25 largest cities.”
-
This isn’t an all or nothing type of thing. We can recognize that the agent’s actions crossed a line and based on the past history, he really shouldn’t have been in the field. We can also recognize that the woman and her wife weren’t heroes or victims, but instead were idiots that were full of shit, and by willfully putting yourself into violent confrontations can and should expect violence to happen.
We can also recognize that some culpability does lie with the administration, the agency, and the policy shortfalls while also recognizing that the opposition that twists and manipulates while also promoting forcible resistance also bears responsibility.
TLDR version? They’re all a bunch of assholes and anybody that puts all the blame one way or the other are doing nothing but continuing the cycle.
-
She had quite a lot of experience with public agitation to be one to "panic". Likely she figured it was the move that would maybe go viral, or whatever her ultimate intention was. She probably didn't lend credence to the possibility that she'd catch a bullet or three, but that's what separates professional agitators from those of us who do respect the objective fact that you're messing around with people with guns, and the ambiguous authority to use them.
We also don't actually know, even now, whether she'd have done anything differently, knowing the outcome. It's not as if martyrdom is an unheard of motivation for political zealots.
-
Spoke at length last evening with a very close friend who served thirty odd years on the Calgary Police Service. Some of those years with the tactical squad. Upon retirement the Service brought him back on contract to train police cadets on essentials of engagement and self defence.
He made some very interesting comments about the incident. First and foremost is the LEO made a fundamental rookie error by walking directly behind and then in front of an engaged vehicle with its driver still behind the wheel and its engine running. Secondly, if they wished to apprehend the woman, placing one of their vehicles directly in front (and behind, if practicable) of her vehicle would immediately deny any egress for her by vehicle. In any event, he would not have handled the situation as these LEOs. She would have been told to immediately vacate the area and the police would deal with her later at her home or in a place away from the ongoing operation. The videos in circulation clearly demonstrate she and her partner’s mischief and obstruction acts did not pose any immediate physical threat to any officer or public on the scene.
-
Here there is court precedent that intentionally putting yourself in harms way doesn't make a subsequent shooting self defense. A recent case had a cop jump onto the running board of an escaping truck and then executing the driver and claiming self defense. The court looks at the 'totality of the situation' and found it unjustified.
-
-
It's a cliche to refer to people we don't like as fascists, but how else would you describe that guy's behaviour?
I was only joking
-
@jon-nyc said in ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis:
Zero chance ICE survives the next democratic administration. None whatsoever.
Well, once they have rid the nation of Hispanics, they'll have to find new areas to focus their efforts. They can ensure that voting is secure and safe for real Americans and that voting places close on time - vote counters leave when the election is called.
-
It's a cliche to refer to people we don't like as fascists, but how else would you describe that guy's behaviour?
@Doctor-Phibes said in ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis:
It's a cliche to refer to people we don't like as fascists, but how else would you describe that guy's behaviour?
Privileged two-bit thuggery?
