Ashes of the Empire | Facebook
Alright, let’s break down the ICE shooting from a professional law enforcement perspective from yours truly. Additional video perspective in the comments showing the agent getting hit. I’ll try to keep this short, but you know me, so let’s see. Hah. I almost gotcha there. Here comes the thesis:
ICE agents were conducting a legitimate operation within the legal scope of their duties, and were clearly identifiable as law enforcement. This seems like a trivial point to bring up, but it’s actually critically important for legal uses of force by sworn officers. Officers must be taking action within the scope of their duties and authorities for the use of force to be legitimate. So the agents were operating in the scope of their duties, under color of law- 
ICE agents encountered a woman (suspect) blocking the roadway (illegal). This was done intentionally to inhibit the movement of the agents conducting their lawful duties (obstruction, also illegal). This sets up the next legal standard- reasonable suspicion, which is defined as the ability of a law enforcement officer to detain you on suspicion that a crime did occur, is occurring, or is about to occur, based on a reasonable set of circumstances or evidence immediately available to the officer. The suspect in this incident was readily and apparently obstructing the agents, and was also blocking the roadway, causing a serious tactical safety issue for the agents and could very easily have been the setup for an ambush. So reasonable suspicion and cause to legally detain and arrest-
Agents then exited their vehicle and approached the suspect vehicle, ordering her to leave, to which she refused. At this point, agents lawfully ordered her out of her vehicle. Because the agents were conducting lawful operations in the scope of their duties, and because the suspect was committing a crime by obstructing them with her vehicle, and she refused their lawful order to move- agents were then legally justified to arrest (detain) the suspect. The suspect then refused the lawful command to exit the vehicle (resisting arrest without violence). So the agents had the legal right to detain and arrest the suspect at this point for multiple offenses-
Tactical analysis: Agents then took positions to detain the driver. One at an angle to the rear-left, one at the driver-side window, and one immediately in front of the vehicle. Now, let’s talk about that poor-tactical decision on the part of the agent in front. Dude, why are you in front of that car? It’s not like you’re going to stop it with your bare hands. This is a dangerous spot to be without cover. A proper high risk traffic stop block would involve his vehicle with physical contact to the front of the suspect vehicle, with at least one vehicle physically contacting the rear of the suspect vehicle, to prevent the suspect vehicle from gaining momentum to break free and escape. I don’t expect most federal agents to know this tactic though, let alone employ it. Federal agents are not patrolling the streets engaged in vehicle-borne police tactics and traffic stops regularly like your local PD/Sheriff’s Office. So I didn’t expect them to employ tactics they don’t train on or use frequently. But still, that agent put himself in a tactical disadvantage to start with.
So at this point, my main accusation to the agent would be he acted like a tactical cringe lord, and did a huge pucker factor cringe move by standing in front of an operational vehicle with the suspect inside. But you know what, I’m not going to give the guy too much sh*t here for that. Everyone I know in the field, even experienced and well trained officers, will sometimes do something incredibly cringeworthy in the heat of a moment on a call. Like I said, these agents don’t do field work everyday in a a patrol setting, and vehicle operations including traffic stops are clearly not their wheelhouse (pun intended). This agent took a typical position for a pedestrian stop, what we call a very simple and well known “tactical L.” The problem is, she isn’t a pedestrian. The suspect is still in a vehicle. This to me points to the training. Clearly they aren’t trained on traffic stops, and in a stressful situation, your rational mind switches off, you enter fight or flight, and you revert to your lowest level of training. This is why repetition in training is important, so that when your thinking shuts off, your unthinking (unconscious) mind takes over, you still act in a (sort of) tactically sound manner. The problem here being that if you have no training in vehicle stops, your mind is going to default to other training (in this case pedestrian stops) that don’t tactically apply. So I’ll call his tactical failure a training failure on the part of the agency, because they clearly don’t do enough traffic stop repetitions, if any. So if anything, you have a bad tactical setup to affect the arrest 
Also I wasn’t there, so only the agents present can articulate what they were sensing in the moment. We have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight and watching the videos a thousand times to analyze. They didn’t. They had a split second to decide and act. And officers may not legally be judged on hindsight, only by the immediate information the officers had at the moment they decided to use the force. The force must be considered objectively reasonable by this standard, and by the standard of if a peer of reasonably similar experience/training, and in the same circumstances would take similar action of force (Graham V Connor).
Alright so let’s move on. After the agents took their tactical positions (for better or worse), the suspect placed the vehicle into reverse (you can see the taillights). She clearly was trying to evade detainment because she saw the agent in front of her vehicle. When she realized she couldn’t back up, she placed the vehicle into drive, and rapidly drove forward with the clear knowledge an agent was in front of her vehicle. The agent, seeing the vehicle rapidly accelerating toward him, drew his service weapon. The suspect vehicle then clearly strikes the agent (this is now, from the immediate perspective of the agent in question, battery with a deadly weapon. Remember, an officer does not have to prove the intent of the driver, only that he reasonably believed based on the totality of the circumstances and the information immediately available to him, that the suspect would cause death or great bodily harm to himself or others when he applied the use of force. That’s the standard- not what we the audience think we see in hindsight. From our perspective, and obviously from the perspective of the agent, this standard(s) was/were met
The agent then discharges his service weapon into the cabin of the vehicle, striking the suspect in the head. It appears he may have fired additional rounds after he was struck and side stepped the vehicle. The suspect vehicle rolls away, striking a parked vehicle some distance down the road. The incident then spiraled with hundreds of people searing the scene and agents then had to secure a perimeter. And now we have 2020 2.0 on our hands.
It should be noted, that Officers may also use deadly force to engage a fleeing felon, if they believe the suspect:
A) Committed a violent forcible felony (vehicular battery)
B) And, using the force is necessary to prevent the escape of the suspect (she obviously would have fled after striking the agent)
C) And, the fleeing suspect poses an immediate threat of death or great bodily harm to someone or the public at large should they evade capture (she just attacked a person with a vehicle, and is now escaping in said vehicle she used to attack a person)
(Tennessee V Garner)
Even from our perspective, it appears this standard is met
So now let’s talk about legality, and where the case may go from here. If I were an attorney for the opposition, here’s what the crux of my argument would be against the agent- that he unnecessarily put himself into a situation where deadly force would be more likely to occur. This sounds like a reach, but I almost guarantee this is the angle they’ll have to take. Most agency policies, including mine, use language just like this- that officers may not intentionally stand in the way of a vehicle to prevent its escape, and then employ deadly force without first trying to evade the vehicle, unless the officer reasonably had no time or options to evade. This does not preclude officers from engaging in deadly force should a suspect intentionally use their vehicle to attack the officer (violent forcible felony). And the officer does not need to prove that was the intent of the driver- only that they reasonably believed based on the totality of the circumstances in the moment that the driver intended to cause death or great bodily harm to the officer.
So a prosecutor going after this agent will likely say that the agent unnecessarily put himself at risk, thus unnecessarily increasing the likelihood of needing to use deadly force without cause. The problem with this approach however, is that this is agency policy, which is typically more restrictive than law, but not criminally binding like law. Even if an attorney can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the agent violated agency policy and training, the shooting can still be considered legally justified. The agent may still be cleared from criminal wrongdoing, but be found to have violated agency policy. If this is the case, the agent can be internally disciplined, up to and including termination. Also, should the agent be found to have been violating agency policy, the agency would be open to civil liability. The individual agent would likely not be open to civil liability though, because he was operating under color of law. Still, the family would try in this scenario and the federal government would likely at least settle for a lot of money.
Some points I’ve seen that keyboard cops lawyers are bringing up:
A) “She had her tired turned like she was trying to avoid the officer and leave.” It doesn’t matter. That’s a 20/20 hindsight observation at best, which as I stated, Graham V Connor means you can only judge the officer based on his perception of what was in front of him at that moment- which is an SUV accelerating at him. I guarantee he’s not looking at the tires, he’s looking at the 5000 lbs. weapon about to crush him. It also doesn’t matter because the agent actually got hit by the vehicle. He can’t sit there and ponder “is she really *intending* to hit me? Idk let me analyze this for a bit before deciding.” Yea, no. He has to make the judgement call in less than 1 second, and if he freezes he dies or gets seriously injured.
B) “She was complying by getting out of the road.” No. She wasn’t gently pulling off to the side to comply. She stepped on the gas and accelerated rapidly. At a minimum she was escaping, but it was directly at the agent (whom she hit). Also, they were well past that point of getting her to move. They gave her orders to move and she refused. They then lawfully ordered her out of the vehicle, and she refused again. She was under arrest.
Remember, again, all of the points being brought up against the agent are 20/20 hindsight that we get the luxury of in our nice heated homes on our smartphones. None of these points hold up against the legal standard of Graham V Connor in order to prosecute the agent. So TLDR, this shooting was justified any way you slice it. Some tactical faux pas on the part of the agent, sure- but everything was done well within the law and the scope of his authority and power.
So what happens now? Well, buckle up because certainly we are going to see riots nationwide as we close in on the weekend. The left has been waiting for an excuse to do this, and they appear to have their well funded agitators and legal teams back in the fray. This will get especially ugly because we have millions of military shed foreigners who now have their “excuse” to fight back. I’ve already seen them waving foreign flags. They’re going to get especially brutal when the agent doesn’t get charged. Because he won’t be. This administration and chain of command is backing this guy from minute one. It appears we are done apologizing for doing our jobs. Good. But we have to know that by standing firm, the battle is inevitable.
Watch your backs, and take care of your families. I hope this administration crushes the rebellion this time, unlike 2020. I mean full military incursions into the blue cities and suppress them. Let’s not let them run wild this time. Pray for our nation. Pray for our officers, agents, and military personnel that will be on the frontlines of this new assault on our civil order. Hold your families close. Be prepared. Be vigilant. Organize if you can and hinder the rioters in any way you can safely. Don’t take this one lying down like 2020. Show them they don’t get to mob rule our civilization.
Peace and order. Strength and honor.
Pax Imperialis
