Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapolis this morning

I disagree that it has that effect. With the assumption of good faith, comments like GP aren't fishing around for an excuse; the point is to highlight what's legally relevant and where there is room to disagree with the interpretation of video.

I don't think it's plausible that defense for the agents would clutch for a straw like "maybe he had a second weapon". That seems sarcastic and not interested in engaging with the argument seriously.

I've seen a couple different videos now (not from any links ITT) and the most commonly shown one seems to have something obscuring the camera at a critical moment. Nevertheless, it seems highly probable that the man is indeed disarmed well before the first shot. But there will still be more that matters:

* Was the first shot fired by an officer who knew that the weapon had already been taken? In particular, could there have been any miscommunication between the officers?

* Did the victim know the weapon had been taken? I don't think it would be likely to succeed in court, but to my understanding the defense could raise the argument that one or more officers perceived that the victim still intended to draw and fire it.

Ultimately, it boils down to establishing whether there was a reasonable perception, on the part of any officer that fired (I can't tell from the video I've seen who fired or how many shots or anything like that), of a threat from the victim meeting the legal standard to respond with lethal force. This is based on "totality of the circumstances" (as in things the officers knew leading up to the moment of shooting), but specifically based on what a reasonable officer would have been able to deduce in the moment (a high-pressure situation), without the benefit of hindsight.

Most analyses I've seen thus far agree that there was not any solid defense here. Certainly it seems much more likely that someone is going to prison for this than in the Renee Good case. The DHS says they will be investigating.

It is, in fact, possible for shootings by LEO to be justified. And the federal ICE agents are, in fact, law enforcement. Walz and/or Frey are factually incorrect when they assert otherwise, it's trivially looked up, relevant legal statues like 8 U.S. Code § 1357 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357) are quite clear about the agents' powers (which as an objective matter of fact do include situations where they may arrest US citizens without a warrant), and Walz and Frey have no real excuse for their false assertions.

You don't have to like laws that entitle law enforcement to use lethal force in limited circumstances (which seem to be only slightly broader than those extended to ordinary citizens), but the US does in fact have such laws, at both state and federal level. And the consequence of not having them, practically speaking, is that criminals kill officers and/or go free.

And as it happens, there's a clear defense in the Good case. I've already pointed at actual lawyers saying the same and explaining it in detail. And my submission of that (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46596055) got flagged for no good reason.

How do you know how he got there? How do you know he wasn't already there when ICE arrived? You are making assumptions in order to cast a non-evidence supported judgement.

I didn't realize the second amendment limited magazine amount.

Yes, a man tried to help up a woman who was pushed to the ground by ICE and stopped further (illegal) excessive assault/battery by ICE. That was the extent he 'imposed' himself.

The man videoed on his camera, first amendmendment protected activity that is not considered impeding ICE.

ICE are not in fact allowed to use lethal force against impediment.

His character matters when you try to paint a picture that is completely untrue and portray him as doing something he didn't and make him out to be some agitator like the government did the last person ICE murdered or the bombastic and unsupported emotionally charged language you choose to use. You calling out/policing language use while using the emotionally charged (and unsupported) language you do is classic internet cry-bully bullshit.

I understand your position is that people can hide at home from the government thugs wearing masks. I understand your position this man should die because he tried to help a woman up. I understand your position this man should die because he videoed government agents (or in your words impeded) wearing masks. I understand your position that law enforcement can murder people when they are impeded (even though legally they can't do that). I understand that you support an absolute garbage position that is based on and backed by nothing and is the opposite of American.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/15/trump-immigr...

Let's stop the bleeding before bike shedding over who done it.