01/09/2026
Kinda long, but worth the read. If tou believe the ICE agent was justified, or you are arguing with someone who believes the ICE agent was justified, take 5 mins and read this.
Listen. I understand the “don’t provoke a law enforcement officer” argument. I understand the “just comply,” argument. I understand the “don’t hit a cop with your car” argument.
All real-world lessons. Because the law enforcement officer (LEO) has a GUN. And dealing with anyone WITH A GUN means you’re in a life-or-death situation.
However. Right wingers, pay attention:
You are *FACTUALLY INCORRECT* when you argue that the ICE agent in Minnesota acted within the law.
ESTABLISHED, US LAW.
The agent, who has been identified as Jonathan Ross, 100% does *not* have absolute immunity. He has *QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.* Which means as long as he was operating reasonably, as a reasonable LEO would act then he can’t be held liable. However… he broke several protocols that have been used to dismantle qualified immunity in REAL LIFE court cases where LEOs have been prosecuted for criminal acts while on the job.
Given Jonathan Ross’ extensive experience in various LEO roles, he defied procedures that he KNEW. This wasn’t a case of being poorly trained. This was an established, experienced LEO acted in direct defiance of protocols he has known for years if not decades.
But right wingers keep saying: “She aimed her car at the agent in front of her bumper and accelerated; that proves she needed to be neutralized.”
This is framed exactly the way courts, use-of-force experts, and police trainers analyze it-not rhetorically, but legally and tactically.
The claim assumes away the central legal question
The statement treats one frame of conduct as dispositive. Courts do not allow that.
Under Fourth Amendment reasonableness, the question is not:
Did the suspect’s action look dangerous in isolation?
It is:
Was deadly force reasonable given the totality of circumstances including whether the officer’s own positioning created the danger?
This is settled law after Barnes v. Felix, which rejected “freeze-frame” analysis and requires courts to consider the entire sequence, including tactical decisions that precede the moment of force.
So the claim fails at the threshold if it ignores how the officer came to be in front of the bumper.
“Aimed and accelerated” does not automatically equal deadly force
Courts repeatedly hold that a vehicle is not per se deadly force in police encounters.
The key inquiry is:
• Imminence
• Unavoidability
• Officer alternatives
If the officer:
• stepped into the vehicle’s path,
• remained there despite lateral escape,
• or blocked retreat options,
then acceleration does not establish intent to kill. it can equally establish an attempt to escape an officer-created trap.
This distinction is explicit in Estate of Starks v. Enyart, where the court held officers cannot:
“Unreasonably create a physically threatening situation and then use deadly force to protect themselves from that danger.”
If the officer’s position is volitional, the car’s movement loses its automatic “weapon” status.
Standing in front of a car invalidates the inference of lethal intent
This is critical.
Modern police training explicitly warns:
If you are in front of a vehicle, you have already violated best practice.
Why courts care:
• A driver cannot escape forward without appearing to threaten the officer.
• The officer’s presence forces a binary choice: stay and be arrested, or move and be shot.
Courts recognize this as officer-created jeopardy.
In Abraham v. Raso, the court rejected the idea that the officer’s fear was self-justifying where her positioning contributed to the perceived danger.
So when someone says:
“She aimed her car at him”
The legally relevant counter is:
Why was he there at all?
Acceleration ≠ intent to kill when lateral escape exists
Experts emphasize a simple geometric truth:
If the officer:
• had lateral movement available, and
• was not pinned or struck,
then acceleration does not satisfy the imminence requirement for deadly force.
Courts expect trained officers to:
• sidestep,
• retreat,
• disengage,
especially when the “weapon” is directionally constrained.
“A driver’s forward movement cannot justify deadly force where the officer voluntarily positioned himself in front of the vehicle and retained the ability to step out of harm’s way; otherwise, officers could manufacture lethal threats by their own placement.”
That sentence is essentially a synthesis of Starks, Abraham, Allen v. Muskogee, and Barnes.
Yes I know this was long, but I’ve proven, beyond any doubt, that FACTUALLY, LEGALLY, if you believe the ICE agent acted correctly, you’re wrong.
