'Why is ICE masked?': Rep. Raskin's Jan 6 rioters claim shocks House amid Renee shooting row

House Judiciary Committee Discussion on ICE Shooting & Related Issues

Key Concepts:

• Tennessee v. Garner (1985): Supreme Court case establishing that deadly force can only be used against fleeing suspects if there is probable cause to believe they pose a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to others.
• Self-Defense: Legal justification for using force when facing an imminent threat.
• Probable Cause: Reasonable belief, supported by facts, that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed.
• De-escalation: Techniques used to reduce the intensity of a conflict situation.
• Doxing: Revealing someone's personal information online without their consent, often with malicious intent.
• Imminent Harm: A threat that is immediate and likely to occur.

I. Initial Dispute: Murder vs. Self-Defense & Investigation Call

The discussion began with disagreement over the characterization of a recent shooting involving ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents. One member argued it was wrong to prejudge the incident as either murder or self-defense, emphasizing the need for a complete investigation. He criticized the President and Attorney General for prematurely claiming self-defense, stating, “It is completely irresponsible for the president and the attorney general to be out there claiming against all evidence that this was self-defense.” He asserted that based on initial observations, the incident appeared to be a case of murder, but stressed the importance of due process.

Another member countered that it was equally wrong to prejudge the incident as murder, advocating for a legal process to determine the facts. He referenced Tennessee v. Garner (1985), explaining that the Supreme Court ruled police can only use deadly force against fleeing suspects if they pose a significant threat of death or serious injury to others. He argued that the 37-year-old woman shot, a mother of a six-year-old, did not present such a threat, stating, “Miss Good…posed no threat to anybody.” He proposed the committee launch an investigation into the shooting, emphasizing that simply disobeying an order does not justify being shot.

II. Concerns Regarding Masked ICE Agents & Potential January 6th Connections

A recurring concern raised was the fact that ICE agents were masked during the incident. Members questioned why ICE agents were masked while local, county, state police, the Army, Navy, Marines, and National Guard are not. The suggestion was made that the masking could be related to the presence of individuals involved in the January 6th Capitol attack working within the Department of Justice and Homeland Security, including Ed Martin and Jared Weise. The rationale was that masking might be intended to prevent the identification of these individuals, given their documented involvement in the January 6th events. “There’s a lot a lot of suspicion that that’s why these people are being masked and they’re not even telling us why they’re being masked.”

III. Perspectives on the Officer’s Perspective & Angle of the Incident

A different perspective was introduced, focusing on the officer’s viewpoint. It was argued that assessing the situation from the officer’s perspective, considering what they saw at the moment, is crucial. The speaker acknowledged the tragedy but emphasized the officer couldn’t have known if the car’s wheels were turning or its trajectory. The point was made that the administration’s assessment “cuts completely against what we’re able to see with our own eyes.”

IV. Accusations of Premature Judgement & Incitement to Violence

Another member criticized Democrats for calling for an investigation while simultaneously labeling the shooting a “murder,” arguing this demonstrated a pre-determined conclusion. He accused Democrats of “undermining the very notion of an impartial investigation.” He further criticized the lack of condemnation from Democrats regarding attacks on ICE agents, stating, “I haven’t heard one Democrat urging deescalation…urging that ICE anti-ICE protesters step back, stand down, stop attacking, stop doxing, stop obstructing, stop inciting violence.”

V. Legal Arguments & the Importance of Obeying Lawful Orders

A counter-argument was presented, clarifying the Tennessee v. Garner case. It was explained that the case would justify the shooting if the ICE agent reasonably believed they were in imminent danger. The speaker emphasized that the woman could have avoided the situation by stopping her car and obeying a lawful order. “If this woman really wanted bail…she could have chosen to stop her car. She could have obeyed a lawful order to remove herself from the vehicle.”

VI. Real-World Examples of Anti-ICE Protest & Obstruction

An example was provided of an incident in Tucson, Arizona, where ICE agents attempting to serve warrants found a restaurant deserted except for the manager, with protesters having chained the doors to prevent their exit. This led to a large protest and altercation with Tucson police. The speaker lamented the lack of Democratic condemnation of such actions.

VII. Fitzgerald’s Bill & Overall Concerns

The discussion briefly touched upon Mr. Fitzgerald’s bill, which was supported by some members. The overall sentiment expressed was concern over the perceived incitement to violence against ICE and the lack of calls for de-escalation from Democrats.

Conclusion:

The committee discussion highlighted deep divisions regarding the ICE shooting. Key points of contention included the characterization of the incident (murder vs. self-defense), the appropriateness of the Attorney General and President’s initial statements, the concerns surrounding masked ICE agents and potential connections to January 6th, and the perceived lack of Democratic condemnation of anti-ICE protests and violence. The debate underscored the complexities of use-of-force incidents and the importance of a thorough, impartial investigation.