What federal guidelines say about agents using deadly force

Key Concepts

• Use of Force Continuum: The idea that law enforcement should escalate force gradually, as a “dimmer switch,” rather than immediately resorting to deadly force.
• De-escalation: The responsibility of law enforcement to reduce tension and avoid situations leading to the use of force.
• Jurisdiction: The legal authority to investigate and prosecute crimes, which can be shared between federal and state agencies.
• ICE Mandate: The unclear and potentially broad scope of responsibilities assigned to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
• Concurrent Investigations: The practice of multiple agencies (federal and state) investigating the same incident simultaneously.

Training Guidelines & Use of Deadly Force by ICE Agents

Juliette Kayyem outlines the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) guidelines governing the use of force by its agents, emphasizing that the number one priority is the preservation of life. Following this, de-escalation is paramount. Agents are expected to avoid placing themselves in situations of imminent danger, and standard training discourages actions like shooting into moving vehicles or positioning oneself in front of a car, as these scenarios are typically de-escalatable – license plates can be recorded, and residences identified later. These guidelines are generally consistent with those used by state and local law enforcement.

The discussion centers on a specific incident involving an ICE agent and a civilian, raising concerns about whether the agent adhered to these established protocols. Kayyem highlights that the videos of the incident are “raising so many significant concerns” due to the apparent deviation from standard procedures. She stresses that use of force isn’t a simple “on-off switch” but rather a “dimmer,” requiring agents to progressively escalate force only when necessary.

Alternative Responses & Incident Analysis

Kayyem suggests that in the specific incident under discussion, the ICE agent had viable alternatives to using deadly force. Specifically, she states the agent “could have stepped aside” and allowed the vehicle to pass, subsequently obtaining the license plate or locating the driver’s residence. She also notes that some observers believe the agent may not have been in the direct path of the vehicle.

The use of multiple bullets fired into the civilian’s vehicle is presented as particularly troubling, especially given the uncertainty surrounding the driver’s awareness of ICE’s intentions. Kayyem attributes this incident, in part, to the challenges of large-scale ICE deployments with an unclear mandate, and the lack of established relationships between ICE agents and the communities they operate in, leading to perceptions of hostility.

Investigation Obstruction & Jurisdictional Disputes

The interview addresses the ongoing investigation into the incident, focusing on the dispute between Minnesota state law enforcement and federal agencies. State investigators are being denied access to evidence by federal agencies, leading Minnesota to withdraw from the probe. Kayyem asserts that this situation is “absolutely not standard”.

She attributes the obstruction to the swift and forceful conclusions drawn by the Secretary of Homeland Security, the President, and the Vice President regarding the incident, including the characterization of the civilian as a “domestic terrorist” and a “mother” being unfairly maligned. This pre-judgment, according to Kayyem, compromises the objectivity of the federal investigation. While acknowledging the potential for an objective investigation by the FBI, she emphasizes the typical practice of concurrent investigations – both federal and state – in such cases, as the incident may constitute both federal and state crimes.

The Importance of Concurrent Investigations

Kayyem explains that concurrent investigations are standard practice because the nature of the crime isn’t immediately clear. An incident might be a federal crime, but it could also be a state crime even if it doesn’t meet the threshold for federal prosecution. This allows for a comprehensive assessment and ensures accountability. She anticipates that Minnesota will initiate its own independent investigation due to a “lack of confidence in the federal investigation” given the White House’s established narrative.

Notable Quotes

• “The number one priority is no loss of life. That is in their -- that is in DHS' own regulations.” – Juliette Kayyem, emphasizing the core principle guiding DHS agents.
• “You have not local law enforcement so engaged with communities that do not know them and would view them as a hostile.” – Juliette Kayyem, highlighting a contributing factor to the incident.
• “It is hard to imagine that this investigation would be objective, because they have already created that narrative.” – Juliette Kayyem, criticizing the premature conclusions drawn by political leaders.

Synthesis/Conclusion

The interview with Juliette Kayyem provides a critical analysis of the ICE agent’s use of force, emphasizing the importance of adherence to established training guidelines, particularly those related to de-escalation and the use of force continuum. The obstruction of the state investigation raises serious concerns about the objectivity of the federal inquiry, potentially influenced by political narratives. The incident underscores the challenges faced by ICE in its operations, particularly regarding its unclear mandate and the need for stronger community engagement. The key takeaway is the necessity for thorough, independent investigations and a commitment to upholding established protocols to ensure accountability and public trust in law enforcement.