I have spent my entire legal career defending police officers in civil damages lawsuits alleging excessive force on private citizens. Here is my legal analysis on the ICE fatal shooting of a 37-year-old female motorist in Minneapolis.
The cell phone videos tell us the sequence of events, particularly because there are multiple angles from different eyewitnesses. Two ICE officers approached the lady’s vehicle with one of them walking directly to the driver’s door, attempting to open it. He loudly ordered the driver to get out of the car. With the driver’s window down, the female driver did not comply. Instead, she backed up her Honda Pilot and then drove forward, appearing to try and get away from the officer holding on the door handle. As her car went forward, she turned her tires to the right. A third ICE officer had approached from the driver’s right and positioned himself toward the left front of the vehicle. Whether the driver noticed him is unknown. As the car moved forward and angled right, the officer in front drew his firearm, stepped to the side to avoid contact with the vehicle and fired point black into the lower far left side of the windshield. One video angle from afar appears to show the car making glancing contact with the officer’s left leg. Then, he fired again, perhaps twice, through the driver’s lowered window while he stood to the side of the vehicle. This all happened in two to three seconds. These facts are not in dispute.
From a legal perspective, the officer who fired his service weapon likely will be sued for money damages and statistically speaking, chances are the deceased woman’s family will receive a large settlement. Why? Because the question of the officer’s fault probably would be decided by a jury, and the expense, delay, and risks of lawsuits are too heavy a burden on the officer. The videos place the officer in great peril of a massive monetary judgment, particularly in Minneapolis, a Democratic stronghold. In my opinion, the woman driver did not notice the officer who shot her, as he had circled around the back of her car with a cell phone in his hand and dangerously positioned himself to the left front of her car. She was fleeing and frightened by the heavily armed masked ICE agent pulling on her car door handle. The officer who fired his handgun acted on instinct, as he was trained. The moving car came toward him, though not fast, at an angle, and in a manner that he easily avoided injury. Other than the slow-moving vehicle, there were no additional aggravating factors to potentially cause the officer to fear for his life. If I were him, I would focus on saving my law enforcement career even if that includes the federal government compensating the lady’s family.
Politicians, on the other hand, have twisted the facts and hordes of Americans have dangerously followed their lead. Leftist activists called the shooting “murder.” From the right, Trump went to social media and said the driver “willfully and violently ran over the ICE officer.” The head of Homeland Security posted that the driver “attempted to kill” the ICE officers with a “weaponized vehicle.” Both sides are calling each other “terrorists.” The videos do not support any of those statements. The disinformation onslaught is nothing more than “alternative facts.”
So, before you get caught up in divisive propaganda and destructive social media, consider this reasonable assessment of the tragedy. Two people made mistakes. The female driver should have stepped out of the car. The male officer should not have fired his weapon. Hindsight, of course, always is 20/20. But federal and state investigations will occur. Civil and possible criminal cases will commence. Everyone involved will have lawyers and constitutional protections, including due process. Justice will be meted out within a rational legal system. That is the American way.
