Better in their words…

Earlier today, federal immigration agents shot and killed a man during an ICE operation in Minneapolis. Within minutes, the story hardened into two opposing certainties online: on the Right, that the shooting was obviously justified because the man “pointed a gun”; on the Left, that it was clearly cold-blooded murder.

Both reactions reveal more about political tribalism than about the evidence.

Before getting into the footage, it’s worth situating where I’m coming from. In 2020, at the height of the Black Lives Matter protests, I wrote for City Journaland the New York Post defending several police shootings — including the Jacob Blake and Ma’Khia Bryant cases — because the available evidence showed an imminent threat to officers or others. Those arguments weren’t popular, but they were evidence-driven.

That same standard applies here.

I’ve now watched the newly released bystander video — filmed by the woman in pink visible in the first viral clip — more than twenty times. It adds context, but it still does not answer the pivotal legal question: Did the man pose a lethal threat at the precise moment the first shot was fired? From this angle, we simply cannot see that moment clearly. Anyone claiming total certainty is overstating what the footage shows.

That said, several things now stand out more clearly.

First, the man appears to intervene after an ICE agent aggressively pushes a woman to the ground. Civilians inserting themselves into armed law-enforcement encounters is risky and often unwise. He shouldn’t have done that. But that mistake does not justify lethal force. It does raise a prior question: why was that level of force used on the woman in the first place? It looks unnecessary and predictably escalatory — the kind of action that invites chaos rather than control.

Second, this incident highlights a serious competence problem. In the initial footage, roughly eight agents struggle to apprehend a single individual. Poor coordination and inadequate physical control dramatically increase the likelihood that encounters spiral into lethal outcomes. Even if the man reached for a weapon at some point, the question remains: why was he able to in the first place?

Third — and most importantly — after watching two slowed-down, stabilized versions of the video (here’s the first and the second), it now appears much harder to justify the shooting. The footage strongly suggests that one officer removes the gun from the man’s waistband before another officer begins firing. If that interpretation holds, the range of plausible justifications narrows significantly.

At that point, the only conceivable justification would be that the shooting officer reasonably feared the man had another weapon and was about to use it after being disarmed. That scenario is theoretically possible — but absent clear evidence of such a motion, it is increasingly difficult to defend. As things stand, it is unclear whether the man was reaching for his waistband in the final seconds before shots were fired. That precise moment remains the crux of the case.

It’s also worth acknowledging the psychological pressure facing the agents: a crowd shouting, whistles blowing, phones recording, and intense political scrutiny bearing down in real time. That environment is undeniably stressful and may contribute to errors in judgment. But stress does not lower the legal or moral standard for the use of deadly force. The insanity of rush-hour traffic in New York City doesn’t absolve an Uber driver of the responsibility to drive safely. This is part of the burden officers knowingly accept — explanation, not exoneration.

Which is why it’s striking how many right-wing commentators have rushed to declare this shooting completely justified. That confidence is not supported by what we can actually see.

How you interpret this shooting is a test of analytical objectivity and resistance to tribal bias. Neuroscientist Bobby Azarian and I have discussed this outside politics: the ability to tolerate uncertainty is a marker of intellectual honesty. Declaring certainty when the evidence doesn’t support it is not moral clarity — it’s narrative loyalty.

On the Right, many insist the agent was unquestionably justified. On the Left, many instantly declare murder. Both camps are making the same error: substituting politics for objective analysis.

At this stage, the honest position is unsatisfying but necessary:

We still don’t know whether the initial use of deadly force was legally justified — though it is increasingly hard to see how it was.
We do know the escalation was poorly handled.
We do know the volume of gunfire (10 rounds or more?) appears excessive.
And we do know that certainty — loudly proclaimed — remains unwarranted.

If we actually care about justice rather than winning the narrative war, the response should be the same as always: transparency, independent investigation, and restraint — in our conclusions as much as in law enforcement itself.

Support The Illusion of Consensus!

The Illusion of Consensus is a fully reader-supported publication. If you support the high-quality mental health and wellness journalism on this site, consider becoming a paid or founding member to receive exclusive articles, early-access episodes, and ask questions for future episodes. Or support The Illusion of Consensus with a one-time donation.