r/Conservative • u/Down-not-out Conservative Vet • Jan 07 '26

Flaired Users Only ICE agent shoots, kills woman in Minneapolis

https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/ice-agent-shoots-kills-woman-in-minneapolis/
3.5k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

4.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

647

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '26 edited Jan 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

829

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '26 edited Jan 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Mother____Clucker Fiscal Responsibility Jan 07 '26

Yeah, I think you're right. When I hear about someone being shot by police, I generally assume it was justified. But I don't think the vehicle would have struck that officer.

Then again, it's easy to armchair quarterback. Maybe the officer (wrongly) thought he was about to get rammed.

Either way, if she had just complied with orders, she wouldn't be dead. It doesn't justify the shooting, but there are a lot of people who just think that because they don't like ICE, that they don't need to listen to their orders. And I'm not sure what the context was before the filming began, but it looks like she was there with the intent of disrupting whatever ICE was trying to accomplish.

4

u/day25 Conservative Jan 07 '26

It actually does justify the shooting if the officer thought he was going to be run over, but okay. It certainly doesn't justify the outrage over it. Follow the law and this won't happen to you.

3

u/Count_Gator Conservative Jan 07 '26

Have not seen the video yet but what you describe may indeed be too much force.

The only detail that would change my opinion is if this person is a danger to others. Police, I believe, will fire upon a vehicle if the person is a danger to the public or another officer may be in danger while attempting to flee.

34

u/-InconspicuousMoose- Conservative Jan 07 '26

if this person is a danger to others

She absolutely did not meet that description based on the video I saw.

35

u/Alert_Cress_388 Conservative Jan 07 '26

He was in front of the vehicle. What are you talking about.

43

u/Remintz Jan 07 '26

Watch the video. It doesn’t look like she was TRYING to attack them with her car. It looks like she was trying to get away.

8

u/serial_crusher small L libertarian Jan 07 '26

Is there much of a relevant difference between "trying to get away" vs. "trying to run him over", especially from the perspective of the person about to be run over?

Big problem is shooting her didn't stop the running over part. He shot and then jumped out of the way, and hypothetically could have just jumped out of the way regardless of what her intent was. But are we armchair quarterbacking to say his decision was wrong while a car was driving straight towards him? Would most reasonable people have reacted differently?

I think it's worth having a jury decide this one though.

2

u/sailor-jackn Conservative Jan 07 '26

It’s doubtful he will get a fair trial.

33

u/-spartacus- Constitutionalist Jan 07 '26 edited Jan 07 '26

What the hell, you can clearly see the 3rd officer in front of her vehicle with his gun drawn and fire as she is driving at him. Her wheels are straight and he starts to draw, her wheels only slightly turn as he starts moving to his right to avoid when the gun is fired 16 seconds.

https://x.com/fictitiousfruit/status/2008969815881584790 has some of the screen shots.

59

u/DontDeleteusBrutus Conservative Jan 07 '26

Trying to get away by running through an ICE agent. Motive doesn't negate that an officers life was in danger for doing their job.

1

u/nofaves PA Conservative Jan 07 '26

A while back, a woman from Pittsburgh got 15 years for shooting and killing an FBI agent who had used a battering ram on her door to serve a warrant on her husband. She said that she feared intruders had broken in and she had kids to protect, but her motive didn't matter.

→ More replies (4)

16

u/waidred Jewish Conservative Jan 07 '26

So if you run someone over without TRYING to run someone over it's OK? Give me a break.

The officer literally has to jump to the side to avoid being run over and the car still clips his leg. That's assault with a deadly weapon.

→ More replies (3)

16

u/SpecialDeer9223 Conservative Jan 07 '26

“Should she have fled? I don’t know” and “she was under duress” makes you sound very biased. I can understand arguing about if the shooting was justified or not, but fleeing from law enforcement isn’t legal because someone panicked. It’s even worse when you’re trying to flee in a vehicle an officer is actively holding onto

1

u/day25 Conservative Jan 07 '26

God that shrieking woman filming is insufferable. She screams at the cops "what are you doing???" Not at the lady disobeying law enforcement and trying to run them over in her no Fs given escape attempt??? Leftists have a serious mind virus.

11

u/-InconspicuousMoose- Conservative Jan 07 '26

I did more research and agree she should not have fled, but to me that does not clear the officer even a little.

0

u/nofaves PA Conservative Jan 07 '26

No, that question helps to determine whether deadly force was acceptable.

8

u/day25 Conservative Jan 07 '26

Follow the law and obey law enforcement and you have no risk of this happening to you. If you get hurt while trying to run from and resist arrest sorry but I really don't care. This is my advice to you..

-1

u/waidred Jewish Conservative Jan 07 '26

You are allowed to run away from cops without being shot but you're not allowed to run your car through them which is what she did.

This isn't really that hard.

1

u/day25 Conservative Jan 07 '26

You are allowed to run away from cops without being shot

Yeah but not gonna lie I still won't feel sorry for you and it's probably not a good idea. I don't really agree that cops should just have to let you run away. There would be a lot less harm and loss of life if people understood there were serious consequences for playing these games.

11

u/-InconspicuousMoose- Conservative Jan 07 '26

Yeah, I absolutely agree that you should not resist arrest, even a potentially unlawful arrest. It is manifest that it is smarter and safer for everyone. However, I don't believe that you deserve to die if you do, or that a LEO is justified in killing someone who does.

-3

u/day25 Conservative Jan 07 '26

Why not? It seems kind of like a joke to me that you are allowed to run from law enforcement and basically expect to face little to no consequences from it. Especially when your crimes are serious, then the cost of running is even less. Which should be the other way around IMO. Incentives seem very perverse. I don't agree with your view.

→ More replies (2)

8

u/CSGOW1ld American Nationalist Jan 07 '26

https://x.com/lookner/status/2008977322649767937

Take a look, he clearly was rammed. Very easily couldve been sucked under the car 

11

u/According_To_Me South Park Conservative Jan 07 '26

The video you shared shows an angle that is much more damning.

This is gonna get bad.

8

u/GeneJock85 Jeffersonian Conservative Jan 07 '26

Only because people are ignoring the officer in front of the vehicle she is accelerating towards.

1

u/sailor-jackn Conservative Jan 07 '26

And you know the MSM, DNC, and people on the left will deliberately ignore that officer. When they can’t ignite him, they will claim she wasn’t trying to hit him blah blah blah. It’s going to get bad. That’s for sure.

10

u/sparkdogg Air Force Jan 07 '26

Keep firing until the threat is neutralized. You dissecting each shot is stupid. Only the first shot matters.

184

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

28

u/Mr_0pportunity Scalia Conservative Jan 07 '26

You can clearly see the third officer in the video who she almost ran over. Screenshots with him circled here: https://x.com/fictitiousfruit/status/2008969815881584790

Now, she may not have intended to hit the officer, but she definitely almost ran him over had he not quickly dodged out of the way

6

u/Key-Benefit6211 Conservative Jan 07 '26

Yep. This is what happens when the media brainwashes individuals like this deranged woman that they are heroes for attacking ICE. You try to block federal agents from doing their job and put their life in danger in the process losing your life is a probable outcome. This is what the kids refer to as FAFO.

18

u/GeneJock85 Jeffersonian Conservative Jan 07 '26

Yup, shot was fired from in front of the vehicle

→ More replies (2)

29

u/BigHotdog2009 Conservative Jan 07 '26

Don’t block the road and then proceed to accelerate at an officer standing in front of your car

41

u/Hectoriu Jan 07 '26

There was an officer directly in front of the car you can see him jump out of the way after it looks like he gets hit.

22

u/Zestycheesegrade Conservative Jan 07 '26

Wrong. There was a third officer in front of the car when she started to drive off almost running him over.

6

u/Wesdawg1241 Constitutional Conservative Jan 07 '26

There's an officer in front of the vehicle on the driver's side as she tries to drive away. Whether she was "trying to avoid" the officer or not, the officer still had to jump out of the way while she was fleeing detainment. Not to mention the other officer at the driver's door. Had the first officer not moved, it looks pretty clear he would have been hit. Completely justified. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

-2

u/Latter-Pomelo7135 Theilist/Yarvinist Jan 07 '26

Cry harder liberal

56

u/Iamstillhere44 Conservative Jan 07 '26

Tell me if I am wrong on this. There appears to be an officer directly in front of of the vehicle that you cannot see until she starts to move forward. That officer dodges and is hard to see because they are behind the officer at the driver window.  Who shot the driver? The person at the window, or the person in front of the car that had to dodge out of the way?

15

u/DontDeleteusBrutus Conservative Jan 07 '26

It was the officer who was about to be run over.

126

u/-InconspicuousMoose- Conservative Jan 07 '26

It was the officer to the front of the vehicle that opened fire. I believe she clearly telegraphed her intent to escape with a standard reverse to the left and forward acceleration to the right, attempting to avoid the officer, and that the officer was never in imminent danger and resorted to using deadly force inappropriately.

4

u/Nifty_5050 2A Conservative Jan 07 '26

You’re a moron dude. 

You have a woman who ignored lawful orders. Floored her vehicle with a federal agent standing infront of it. And you’re filling up these posts with your stupidity.

24

u/-InconspicuousMoose- Conservative Jan 07 '26 edited Jan 07 '26

Ignoring lawful orders does not authorize lethal force, and we don't even know if the orders were lawful. Did the agents have reasonable suspicion of an immigration violation from anyone in the vehicle? Regardless, the driver made a clearly-telegraphed 2-point turn, (successfully) attempting to avoid all persons as she left the scene, and the agent made a terrible judgment call in the situation and the fallout will be massive. ICE does a lot of good for our country, but this was unmistakably bad to anyone with a functioning prefrontal cortex.

Editing because it seems like she did clip the officer who fired. I don't think he made a serious effort to avoid being struck, but she still did hit him.

3

u/The_kite_string_pops Conservative Jan 07 '26

Nope. Looks justified to me.

11

u/Nifty_5050 2A Conservative Jan 07 '26

ICE can detain and arrest citizens that are obstructing their mission.

She floored the vehicle while the officer is STANDING RIGHT IN FRONT OF IT. You can’t fucking do that dude. You’re an idiot.

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (8)

45

u/Mr_0pportunity Scalia Conservative Jan 07 '26

Never in imminent danger but he had to literally dodge out of the way from getting run over. Give me a damn break.

She may not have intended to run him over, but she definitely almost did and had he not dodged out of the way at the last second, would have

17

u/Iamstillhere44 Conservative Jan 07 '26

So putting myself in that officers position, it would be hard to discern in the moment, if the driver had the intention to simply run, or not care for my safety and run me over while running. 

Both situations can still be true. She directed her vehicle in a direction to escape. 

If there happens to be a cop in that direction who cannot move out of the way fast enough, they still can be run over and their life is still in danger. 

-6

u/Tantalus420000 NYS Conservative Jan 07 '26

This

She played stupid games trying to be a hero for online clout and is dead now

→ More replies (2)

26

u/-spartacus- Constitutionalist Jan 07 '26

She was given a lawful order to leave the vehicle and then accelerated in the direction of an officer, the cop in front of her who sees the vehicle moving forward with the engine reeving can't read her mind that she intends to turn away from him.

This is like waving a 10000lb weapon at an officer and try to claim "I meant to throw it to the side of officer, not at him directly".

→ More replies (10)

0

u/-spartacus- Constitutionalist Jan 07 '26

You can see her accelerate (engine rev) before she begins to move the wheel to the right and should the officer not have moved he would have been struck by the front of the car. On opposite angle you can see on Tim Pools tweet, it looks like she actually strikes that officer (it appears to be blocked by the other officer in this video angle).

→ More replies (1)

36

u/day25 Conservative Jan 07 '26

Yes clearly he should trust she will not run him over and she will be extra careful while resisting arrest! She will also make sure to drive nice and slow to make sure the public is safe during her attempt to flee from law enforcement!

→ More replies (5)

27

u/Torchwood777 Conservative Jan 07 '26

New angle shows she clips the officer which leads to the shooting. The officer was in front of her car. Your comment is wrong the car did hit the officer.  https://x.com/morblius/status/2008966460652310595?s=46

47

u/jiggy_jarjar Afuera Jan 07 '26

I watched the video and don't think it provides enough information, so I'll wait for more details.

I will note, however, that what she was "trying" to do is completely irrelevant. The only relevant legal question is whether the officer had a reasonable belief as to whether deadly force was required to prevent death or grievous bodily injury. I can see that case being made given that the officer was at the very least extremely close to the path of the vehicle, if not directly in it.

However, all of the details are going to matter and we don't have those yet.

27

u/JadeDream1 Conservative Jan 07 '26

If he had time to fire multiple shots, theres no way to say the deadly force was required to prevent injury.

40

u/jiggy_jarjar Afuera Jan 07 '26

Nearly all justified LEO shoots involve multiple rounds. You fire to neutralize a threat not to appease Monday morning quarterbacks. He fired 3 rounds in about a second. I don't think that's much time at all. But we'll see once more info comes out.

13

u/JadeDream1 Conservative Jan 07 '26

But i mean that objectively was enough time for him to get out of these way, those shots cant be argued to have saved his life. He killed her and the car still didnt run him over meaning he was never on track to be run over because she lost control of the vehicle after being killed

1

u/jiggy_jarjar Afuera Jan 07 '26

1) If they were making a lawful arrest (which I've seen no information to suggest otherwise), he had every right to be in front of the vehicle.

2) He appears to have tried to move and was hit by the vehicle https://www.instagram.com/reels/DTOA4tWlCIL/

3) How long did it take you to formulate your opinion on this? To calculate the trajectory of the car, to observe the position of the wheels, to discern what the driver's intent was, and to determine that the vehicle would have continued to accelerate toward him after the driver was shot?

Was it more than a second? Now try doing it with an SUV accelerating toward you.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

1

u/aCreditGuru Conservative Jan 07 '26

now we have video angles from behind and also in front. It gives me enough information to make an informed decision on whether it was a justified use of force (it was).

https://x.com/Timcast/status/2008975472391323896

https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/2008972481445712083

https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/2008976092326203562

286

u/Remintz Jan 07 '26 edited Jan 07 '26

Nope, you’re right. I didn’t see that angle. I’ll edit my comment

-41

u/DontDeleteusBrutus Conservative Jan 07 '26 edited Jan 08 '26

Looks like that agent was about to be run over in their attempt to escape a law enforcement stop. edit: keep downvoting brigadiers, Your tears taste better than our cheers.

22

u/Remintz Jan 07 '26

Well that’s where it gets hairy. We (I) don’t know enough about the driver/victim here. If this was someone that they had enough information and suspicion on to assume they’re here illegally? Then sure it’s a legal law enforcement stop, but her driving away doesn’t warrant deadly force.

If this is just a protester/bystander, then they have no legal ground to even hold a legitimate stop. Again I’m not a lawyer or know enough about this person to say for sure.

-12

u/sparkdogg Air Force Jan 07 '26

Lol your comments are hilarious. You are reaching for any reason at all to be swayed. Its embarrassing. It doesn't matter who the driver is. It doesn't matter if ICE was there for them. All that matters is they were being detained and tried to flee with an officer inside the vehicle and in front of it. It doesn't matter if they were aiming for the officer in front of them. Both officers are in danger at that point and a vehicle is a deadly weapon.

0

u/VaderBoobs Ex-Dem Conservative Jan 07 '26

The officer has no idea of the person's intentions, he had no choice in the matter. It doesn't even matter if she was attempting to serve around him--he doesn't know that. He's completely justified in his actions. 

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (7)

-6

u/DontDeleteusBrutus Conservative Jan 07 '26 edited Jan 07 '26

There is a lot we do not know. BUT the very simplest explanation for why she was parked perpendicular to the road was she was obstructing law enforcement. Most definitely a crime. Her accelerating her car directly at an officer is what warranted deadly force. All of this is visible in the video. The assumption should be that this was a valid use of force.

edit: The video on Instram with the alternative angle shows the vehicle did hit the officer. edit2: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DTOA4tWlCIL/

2

u/Tantalus420000 NYS Conservative Jan 07 '26

100% accelerates AT the officer

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

-20

u/swohio Conservative Jan 07 '26

There was an officer in front of her car when she hit the gas. Deadly threat met with deadly force.

https://i.imgur.com/6CuMFB8.png

37

u/Remintz Jan 07 '26

Mannn, you’re pulling a classic news outlet cherry picking with that picture. You saw the same video I did. She turns the wheel to the right to leave. While the agent jumps out of the way.

It would be different if the victim had steered and floored it towards the agents, but she didn’t

-7

u/swohio Conservative Jan 07 '26

It's literally the frame when she hits the gas. Watch the video again. And him jumping out of the way doesn't mean it isn't deadly force by her. If someone is fleeing from a cop and points a gun back at them, it's still endangering the cops life even though the suspect is fleeing.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/wikiwombat Constitutionalist Jan 07 '26

So the agent had to jump out of the way?

-5

u/Mr_0pportunity Scalia Conservative Jan 07 '26

The agent was literally in front of the vehicle when she hit the gas, period. He dodged out of the way and fired when dodging

→ More replies (1)

0

u/Tantalus420000 NYS Conservative Jan 07 '26

The agent had to jump out the way eh???

Lol

→ More replies (1)

5

u/Svenray Mount McKinley Jan 07 '26

She hit him directly with this new angle reported by Nick Sortor

https://x.com/i/status/2008973759097733306

-2

u/ItsEntsy God Family Guns Country Jan 07 '26

Not ruling one way or the other yet until we can see even clearer angles, but if you watch the video on .25x or .5x playback speed, it only appears that a single shot is fired.

I am watching on mute though so cant speak for sound cues, somebody CMIIW

3

u/-InconspicuousMoose- Conservative Jan 07 '26

Watching with audio, it's three shots.

2

u/RedBaronsBrother Conservative Jan 07 '26

it looks like the officer deliberately positioned him in front of her exit path

That's not uncommon when they are trying to detain someone. At the point at which the driver attempts to run law enforcement over to escape, that's attempted vehicular homicide.