A post from
Jessica McBride -
This is one of the most interesting responses I got on an earlier post asking law enforcement and use-of-force experts to weigh in on whether the Good shooting was lega... View MoreA post from
Jessica McBride -
This is one of the most interesting responses I got on an earlier post asking law enforcement and use-of-force experts to weigh in on whether the Good shooting was legally justified. I have his identity. But he needs to stay anonymous. READ IT ALL.
The post-
“I am a current ICE Use of Force Instructor with over a decade of federal law enforcement experience as well as nearly two decades of military experience. I can tell you the situation is ‘lawful but awful’ because it is justified, but it's awful for a lot of reasons (i.e. she didn't need to try to drive through, she was engaged in protesting, etc).
He (Ross) is also a firearms instructor, a field intelligence officer (both in Border Patrol and now in ICE), and he is also a field intelligence officer and assigned to the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force - he is a VERY experienced officer.
ICE use of force policy does state what others have been arguing that he cannot create a danger. However, they had stopped her and were attempting to take her out of the vehicle and place her in custody for a violation of 18USC111.
ICE employees are designated as ‘immigration officers.’ And are therefore conferred legal authorities under 8 USC 1357 for the purpose of arrest. a1-a4 relate specifically to aliens, A5 (A) &(B) relates to ANYONE. So ICE absolutely had the ability to stop and detain her.
She speaks clear English as indicated by the video, so there's no reason to believe that she couldn't understand the instructions that she was given.
The passenger was allowed to get out of the vehicle and start filming which indicates either: A potential trap for law enforcement, or B an agitator looking for reaction. The vehicle was parked perpendicular to the roadway with an ice vehicle in front of and behind. The position of the vehicle indicates that what the agents told was true that she was following, trying to insert her car between agents, attempting to block them, etc. That becomes dangerous, because what is the reason for doing so? Is it a drop for law enforcement? Is it just harassing conduct, officers don't know, but it is intimidating conduct which is also covered by 18 USC 111.
She was ordered to exit the vehicle, which law enforcement officers are authorized to do under Pennsylvania v Mimms and officers attempted to remove her from the vehicle, at that point she backed the vehicle up indicating a lack of compliance. At that point he crosses in front of the vehicle. Here is the rub, he could have been crossing to move to support his team mate. We don't know, we don't have any intent. As an aside, good on him for having a camera rolling, especially if he didn't have a body cam.
Now when I heard the drive baby drive comment, Yes her steering wheel was locked to the right, but you can only tell that if you were from the side of the vehicle and could see how far the tires had turned where he could not from his viewpoint.
Drive baby drive being said when an officer is in front shows a lack of regard for safety, and the officer may have felt that was a trap to try to run him over. That would be serious bodily injury or death, and use of force is not a 50/50 proposition where I have to meet your force with an equal but opposite force, I can use the minimum amount of force necessary to stop your actions. When a vehicle is weaponized, it increases the likelihood of deadly force utilization. Many are also interpreting ice policy incorrectly when they say that ice policy says that you won't shoot at moving vehicles. What it's saying is that you cannot shoot at a moving vehicle to ‘disable the vehicle.’ However, if you shoot at the driver to stop a threat that is legitimate use of force. We don't shoot at tires because they move and because they don't actually stop the threat plus a 9mm may not penetrate certain parts of the cabin, or may over penetrate tires, so it would be an unnecessary risk.
Now, in the totality of circumstances - we have ICE enforcing the law on others or generally existing. An uninvolved party from out of town comes to the ICE operation, begins harassing conduct, continues dangerously harassing conduct against officers for blocks, somehow cuts them off and positions their vehicle (seemingly to prevent travel), issued commands to get out in a language she does understand, she refuses through her actions, officers attempt to take her out of the vehicle, she actively resists by moving the vehicle and pulling her arm away. The officer in front sees this go down, (I would have thought that she was going to injure the other officers) prompting the officer to draw, ‘drive baby drive’ is said, she starts going forward, deadly force is utilized. I would reasonably think that by her continuing to drive that she posed a continuing threat to law enforcement given the violent nature of the previous harassing conduct, the violent active resistance to detention/arrest immediately preceding the use, and driving through (with her passenger now outside of the vehicle) increasing the likelihood of another violent conflict.
Lastly, let's take a moment to talk about how his experience informs the use of force. He's in Minnesota, stationed in Minnesota. He's not an outsider. So he knows what is "normal conduct" for the area. He is aware of the current tactics by protesters in Minnesota including the violent mob tactics and the use of vehicles in dangerous manners to assault, resist, impede, or intimidate ICE. That experience plays a significant factor in the perception of the subject's actions. Now add to that the officer’s experience being dragged, where he now sees the officer attempting to extract the subject doing so while the subject seems to drive away. He knows that can result in serious bodily injury or death.
Is it awful? 100%. I know of absolutely no one that wakes up looking to shoot someone. I wish I never have to use a firearm, and I’ve only drawn it two times (once off duty) and taken the slack out of the trigger once. It would put a pit in anyone's stomach that they committed the most permanent seizure and took someone's life over something the subject could have and should have avoided.”
