by zahlman | 2026-01-13 06:43:33+00:00
> the point where ICE had already needlessly and unlawfully performed multiple escalations.

I have watched several videos of the incident from multiple angles. I can see nothing that I can identify as an "unlawful escalation". The worst thing is that one of the officers (not, as far as I can tell, the one who shot) using the word "fucking". On other video, meanwhile, there is audio of the victim's partner encouraging her to "drive, baby, drive", after being continuously belligerent with another officer.

> where those escalations were clear retaliation for the victim exercising her Constitutionally-protected right to protest.

No, they were very obviously nothing of the sort. She does not have a constitutionally protected right to block traffic and she was clearly advised that the positioning of her vehicle posed a threat to safety and an impediment to others' right to use the road (all true).

> The officer "in front" of the car had previously fucked around and found out about moving vehicles.

First off, nothing about the incident describes "FAFO":

> Agents followed Muñoz, pulled him over and asked for identification. Muñoz provided his identification but refused to get out of the car, the affidavit said.

> The officer, believed to be the same one who allegedly shot Good, then broke the rear driver's side window of Muñoz's car and tried to reach for the lock on the driver's door. Court documents say Muñoz drove away with the agent's arm stuck in the vehicle, dragging him nearly 100 metres over about 12 seconds. The officer was knocked loose when Muñoz hit a curb.

Muñoz was legally required to comply with a lawful order to exit the vehicle.

That said, the trauma of this incident is a reason why it would be reasonable for the officer to respond as he did, not a reason to know better or whatever you're trying to imply.

And there is no reason to put "in front" in quotation marks. He was unambiguously in front of the vehicle.

> He was positioned just off the quarter panel

No, he was not. He was almost hit squarely, and would have been hit squarely but for the attempt to turn to the right and head down the road.

> which we can only assume was highly deliberate after the last incident

This is already bordering on conspiratorial thinking before we take into account the motion of the officer and the vehicle in the second or two prior to impact.

> enough room to not get hit

Except he objectively did in fact get hit, and objectively did fire from directly in front of the vehicle.

> but close enough to have a pretext to murder this woman.

Calling this "murder" is begging the question.

> Regardless of how courts may judge legality (if they're even allowed to)

There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that they "wouldn't be allowed to". And definitionally, it is only "murder" if a court finds it to be so through a correct application of the law.

> this incident demonstrates a callous disregard for human life that is unacceptable for anybody who carries a gun, never mind supposed public servants.

This statement is incompatible with even a basic understanding of how law enforcement works. Officers are armed exactly so that they have the ability to use lethal force when a criminal poses a serious threat to them. The state has https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence .

Please watch the first half of the video I linked in a nearby comment (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDda-L_ZOE8). It clearly lays out the legal precedent relevant to cases like this one.