01/08/2026
Buckle up, this is going to be a long, but educational, read:
Leftists have begun copying and pasting these cases without context. So, let me give these leftists some context regarding the ICE shooting in Minneapolis & how they are deliberately lying to you by wrongly sharing "case law" that they claims makes the ICE agent a murderer and the shooting unjustified. Now, I would only argue that the only questionable shot in this case was the final one, but even that shot could be competently argued by either side. So, the cases that the left are sharing are nice copy and paste, but ignores the facts of those cases versus this one. Let me help you not quote bad law that is distinguished from the facts here beginning with the cases that are being copied and pasted as evidence for their argument:
Adams v Speers (2007, not 2020): case deals with a vehicle was completely surrounded with ZERO avenue of escape. There were no officers in immediate danger; only vehicles. The felon began SLOWLY backing up while still surrounded by police vehicles with nowhere to go. Speers shot him. I agree THAT was a bad shoot based on THE FACTS. (by the way, it was a 2007 9th Circuit case not applicable to Minnesota).
Orn v City of Tacoma (2020, not 2019): This involved a slow-moving vehicle pursuit, not a vehicle used as a weapon case. It was also a 9th circuit case that doesn't control in Minnesota. It is VASTLY different from this case.
Cordova v Aragon (2009): Again, another police pursuit case that has nothing to do with the facts here. It deals with a fleeing suspect who drove recklessly down the wrong side of a highway but no other motorists were in the immediate vicinity, and the officer was not in immediate danger when firing the fatal shot, the potential risk to hypothetical motorists alone did not justify the use of deadly force nearly certain to cause death. Here, the officer was in immediate danger because his vehicle was used as a weapon. Oh, and the officer here was granted qualified immunity, so this doesn't help your argument. This was also a 10th Circuit case that does not control in Minnesota.
Villanueva v Cali (2021): This case is similar in fact pattern to Orn, and is also a 9th Circuit case that does not control in Minnesota. It was a slow speed chase that followed a high speed chase and the vehicle wasn't used as a weapon.
Now, let me give you actual case law that is relevant to the facts of THIS case, all of which are controlling in Minnesota:
Molina-Gomes v. Welinski, 676 F.3d 1149 (8th Cir. 2012): "When Molina Campos sped backwards, he dragged the undercover officer along, knocking him to the ground. At the time Welinski fired his weapon he had probable cause to believe that Molina Campos posed a threat of serious danger to the officers as well as to other motorists."
Hernandez v. Jarman, 340 F.3d 617, 623 (8th Cir. 2003): "Jarman's use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances as Jarman knew them to be at that time."
LeFever v. Dawson Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, 109 F.4th 1100 (8th Cir. 2024): "We find no excessive force in the initial firing of shots at Mr. LeFever's truck when he backed toward the officers standing near their vehicles or as he began driving away and across the field."
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694 (1985): "Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force."
Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 125 S. Ct. 596 (2004): "No Fourth Amendment violation when an officer shot a fleeing suspect who presented a risk to others."
United States v. Kendrick, 423 F.3d 803, 809 (8th Cir. 2005): "[D]angerous circumstances surrounding a person's attempt to flee from law enforcement are compounded by the person's operation of a motor vehicle . . . . As a person is in flight from custody, his vehicle has the potential to become a deadly or dangerous weapon."
Miller-Fields v. Londregan, 755 F. Supp. 3d 1122 (D. Minn. 2024):"[I]t was objectively reasonable for [the officer] to believe that [the officer] was in immediate danger, as he faced the possibility that [the officer] could be dragged down the road . . . if the vehicle began to move." "It was objectively reasonable for an officer to use deadly force to neutralize what he reasonably believed was a risk of serious physical harm to others, including a fellow officer."
