Statement on the Minnesota ICE Shooting
I’ve watched the video carefully, from multiple angles, slowed down.
This is not an easy call — and anyone pretending it is isn’t being honest.
I understand the reality officers face. A vehicle can be a deadly weapon. In real time, fear and adrenaline matter. I’ve been on the other side of police encounters myself, and I don’t pretend I’d have handled every moment perfectly either.
That said, use of deadly force is justified only while an immediate threat exists — and timing matters.
What concerns me in this video is not that force was used, but when it was used.
If an officer fires while still directly in the vehicle’s path, that’s one situation.
But when the officer is already clear of the car, and the vehicle is on a trajectory away — the justification becomes far less clear.
The additional shots fired from the side of the vehicle are especially troubling. At that point, the threat appears diminished, and force begins to look less like self-defense and more like an attempt to stop escape — which the law does not allow with deadly force.
This doesn’t mean the officer is automatically guilty of a crime.
It does mean the incident deserves serious, transparent review.
We can support law enforcement and insist on standards that protect both officers and civilians.
Those two things are not opposites — they’re how trust is built.
No slogans. No rushing to judgment. Just facts, timing, and accountability
I’ve watched the video carefully, from multiple angles, slowed down.
This is not an easy call — and anyone pretending it is isn’t being honest.
I understand the reality officers face. A vehicle can be a deadly weapon. In real time, fear and adrenaline matter. I’ve been on the other side of police encounters myself, and I don’t pretend I’d have handled every moment perfectly either.
That said, use of deadly force is justified only while an immediate threat exists — and timing matters.
What concerns me in this video is not that force was used, but when it was used.
If an officer fires while still directly in the vehicle’s path, that’s one situation.
But when the officer is already clear of the car, and the vehicle is on a trajectory away — the justification becomes far less clear.
The additional shots fired from the side of the vehicle are especially troubling. At that point, the threat appears diminished, and force begins to look less like self-defense and more like an attempt to stop escape — which the law does not allow with deadly force.
This doesn’t mean the officer is automatically guilty of a crime.
It does mean the incident deserves serious, transparent review.
We can support law enforcement and insist on standards that protect both officers and civilians.
Those two things are not opposites — they’re how trust is built.
No slogans. No rushing to judgment. Just facts, timing, and accountability
Statement on the Minnesota ICE Shooting
I’ve watched the video carefully, from multiple angles, slowed down.
This is not an easy call — and anyone pretending it is isn’t being honest.
I understand the reality officers face. A vehicle can be a deadly weapon. In real time, fear and adrenaline matter. I’ve been on the other side of police encounters myself, and I don’t pretend I’d have handled every moment perfectly either.
That said, use of deadly force is justified only while an immediate threat exists — and timing matters.
What concerns me in this video is not that force was used, but when it was used.
If an officer fires while still directly in the vehicle’s path, that’s one situation.
But when the officer is already clear of the car, and the vehicle is on a trajectory away — the justification becomes far less clear.
The additional shots fired from the side of the vehicle are especially troubling. At that point, the threat appears diminished, and force begins to look less like self-defense and more like an attempt to stop escape — which the law does not allow with deadly force.
This doesn’t mean the officer is automatically guilty of a crime.
It does mean the incident deserves serious, transparent review.
We can support law enforcement and insist on standards that protect both officers and civilians.
Those two things are not opposites — they’re how trust is built.
No slogans. No rushing to judgment. Just facts, timing, and accountability
0 Comentários
0 Compartilhamentos
564 Visualizações
0 Anterior
English
Arabic
French
Spanish
Deutsch
Turkish
Dutch
Italiano
Russian
Romaian
Portuguese (Brazil)
Greek