The ICE agent wasn’t directly in front of the SUV at first. When the driver began to reverse, that motion put him directly in front of the SUV, and then when she shifted into drive and moved forward, that forward motion cause the car to hit him. As such, he didn’t create the danger. The driver did.
All the shots happened within split seconds, and courts do not judge self-defense in slow motion or frame by frame — they consider what a reasonable officer perceived at that exact moment. Video shows the ICE agent was directly in front of the SUV as it moved forward, with tires losing traction and engine/tire noise, making it reasonable for him to fear imminent harm. The law definitely doesn’t ignore perception — self-defense is judged on what a reasonable officer perceived in that split second, not on perfect hindsight.
The SUV’s motion, tire noise, and engine revving would understandably make an officer feel an imminent threat in a matter of seconds. Also, based on videos from different angles, the car did very likely indeed hit the ICE agent. Courts and use-of-force law judge self-defense on what a reasonable officer perceived at that split second, not hindsight, and self-defense very very likely stand based on the circumstances.
Your previous comment was removed by the moderator because it was completely inappropriate.
That statement is an explicit threat of violence. Disagreeing with you does not make someone a Nazi or justify harm
You’ve now explicitly stated an intent to kill people you label as ‘Nazis.’ That is a direct threat of violence and criminal intimidation, not speech or debate. Disagreement does not make someone a fascist
This is no longer debate or political speech. You’ve made explicit threats of violence and advocated killing people you label as ‘Nazis.’ That is harassment and criminal intimidation, not constitutional defense. Disagreeing about law or evidence does not make someone a fascist, and threats don’t become justified because you invoke ideology.
You are making explicit threats and advocating violence to silence disagreement. That is harassment and intimidation, not ‘law’ or morality. Disagreeing with you does not make someone a terrorist, an accomplice, or anything else you’re inventing.
That’s an explicit threat and doxxing intimidation, not an argument. Disagreeing about evidence or law does not make someone an ‘accomplice.’
Telling someone they’ll face ‘real-world consequences’ for disagreeing with you is a threat, no matter how you dress it up. Disagreement over evidence or law does not make someone an accomplice to murder. That kind of rhetoric abandons reason entirely and replaces it with intimidation.
Name-calling and threats don’t turn disagreement into ‘lying.’ And implying real-world violence over an argument just proves you’ve abandoned evidence and law entirely.
Invoking Sherman and talking about ‘dealing with’ people isn’t political critique — it’s glorifying violence. You can call it whatever you want, but threatening harm under the guise of history or ideology is exactly why the rule of law exists. If your argument only works when backed by intimidation, you’ve already conceded that it can’t stand on its own.
He was not standing directly in front of the SUV until the driver reversed. Calling me a ‘fascist’ isn’t an argument — it’s a label meant to avoid engaging with facts or law. Disagreeing about this incident doesn’t make someone a fascist; it just means you don’t have a substantive response.
Threatening people and their families is exactly where any moral argument collapses. Disagreeing about law or policy doesn’t justify intimidation or violence. You’re no longer arguing morality — you’re proving why we need law to restrain mob logic and personal threats.
Calling people liars or fascists doesn’t change the actual evidence. The legal focus remains on whether the officer reasonably perceived an imminent threat in that split second, not on social media narratives or insults.
Collective guilt and rage dumps aren’t legal arguments. You’re listing unrelated tragedies to justify condemning this specific incident without applying the actual legal standard. Self-defense law doesn’t change based on your opinion of police, ICE, or statistics — it asks whether, in that moment, a reasonable officer perceived an imminent threat. You don’t get to replace evidence and law with slogans, insults, or ‘all cops are the same’ logic. And no — anger at institutions doesn’t justify violence against agents or rewriting legal standards after the fact. Accountability comes through investigations and courts, not mobs or moral absolutism.
Insults and wild hypotheticals don’t change the facts. The videos show the SUV moving forward as the officer fired — whether or not it was intentional, he had only split seconds to assess an imminent threat. Courts and federal use-of-force policy don’t expect perfect decisions, only reasonable ones under intense pressure. That’s the legal standard, not whatever caricature you’re trying to paint. Personal attacks don’t replace evidence or law. If you’re upset about what happened, the effective and responsible way to push for change is through peaceful protest and winning elections — not encouraging or celebrating violence against ICE, even if you strongly disagree with their actions.
No — after she reversed, the ICE agent ended up directly in front of the SUV. When she moved the car forward, it actually lost traction for a split second, which would make the engine and tire noise louder and more threatening. She might have hit the gas pedal all the way. Imagine being in his position, hearing the sudden rev of the engine and the tires skidding toward you — it’s understandable he would perceive an imminent, serious threat. The video I linked shows this sequence, and based on multiple angles and the camera jerking at the same moment, it’s very likely he was hit or struck by the SUV.
“Arguing I should ‘practice pulling out my ID slowly’ is about as relevant to the legal standard as telling someone to juggle while driving — completely absurd. What matters is whether the officer reasonably perceived an imminent threat in that split second, not your random hypothetical.
Using threats and insults doesn’t make your argument stronger — it just confirms you’ve abandoned reason. Disagreement over law or evidence does not make someone a fascist, and personal attacks are not a substitute for debate.