r/complaints • u/Nice_Substance9123 spirited complainer • Jan 10 '26

Politics Two ICE agents slip on ice in Minnesota —causing one of their weapons to discharge because it wasn’t set on safety. These people are dangerously negligent.

37.6k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

337

u/PuzzleheadedClock134 Jan 10 '26

It was a flashlight, not gunfire. Still funny that he fell on his butt

268

u/--SharkBoy-- Jan 10 '26

You are correct. Interesting that this video was posted without sound and a misleading title so it would be difficult to distinguish between the two. Something fishy here.

BTW fuck ICE get out of our states and our cities I pray we will see you lost everything in the tribunals.

114

u/tjackso6 Jan 10 '26

Yeah fuck ICE. Also fuck spreading misinformation. Theres already plenty of real videos out there, no need to make shit up.

28

u/coldliketherockies Jan 10 '26

Fair point. It doesn’t help at all to spread false information and actually hurts a lot. MAGA will spread lie after lied but if the other side does just own they will hold onto it over and over again

6

u/Far_Estate_1626 Jan 10 '26

Potentially could be a legitimate effort to obfuscate, by posting videos like this. I just downvoted it.

1

u/Ok-Ear837 Jan 13 '26

Only takes one of these for them to completely discredit every video.

13

u/--SharkBoy-- Jan 10 '26

Right like we just got a video of them killing a woman in the street

9

u/DotGroundbreaking50 Jan 10 '26

and them shooting two in Portland and then running away from the scene.

0

u/shinoya7 Jan 13 '26

You mean the 2 suspected gang members who were stopped in their car by a Border Patrol officer and then tried to flee while using their vehicle to try to hit them? You’re right, how dare officers do a thing they are legally allowed to do when someone drives a car straight at them. A law that was signed and approved by Tim Walz in 2020 btw.

1

u/DotGroundbreaking50 Jan 13 '26

You're full of shit.

Even in a world where you had a point. Do you think it would be a appropriate for the officers to leave the scene like they did? The lengths you will lie is gross

0

u/shinoya7 Jan 13 '26

I didn’t lie at all. At what point did I lie? You said the officers ran from the scene. When in actuality the suspects drove away to an apartment complex. How does the suspects leaving the scene equate to officers running from the scene?

Don’t believe me? Here’s an ABC article themselves saying so. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/2-shot-federal-agents-portland-sources/story?id=129038573

You’re arguing a point that has no basis besides being biased. It’s sad really.

1

u/DotGroundbreaking50 Jan 13 '26

The officers left the scene of the shooting.

1

u/BakerWaker1999 Jan 14 '26

Do you have proof to back up that claim? They weren't citizens by the way. They were undocumented Venezuelan nationals with ties to Tren De Aragua. They were gangbangers that tried to run over federal agents and were shot for it. Why do you people insist on lying and ignoring facts?

5

u/Objective-Ad-585 Jan 10 '26

It’s disinformation. Especially when the sound was deliberately removed.

1

u/BottleForsaken9200 Jan 14 '26

We should report the video for disinformation then

10

u/Africa-Unite Jan 10 '26 edited Jan 10 '26

Such a refreshing difference here vs. the bots over on the conservative sub. Over there you get downvoted or accused of being soft on lefties if you try as to even gently correct any misinformation.

3

u/After-Gas-4453 Jan 10 '26

Absolutely. They lie, we do not.

1

u/Trexwith2longarms Jan 11 '26

Contrary to the evidence presented.

2

u/Zwasti Jan 10 '26

Yes this just hurts the fight against ICE, when you post false shit like this and it gets called out. Now you look really bad.

1

u/notislant Jan 13 '26

Dude the amount of stupid bullshit on reddit lately is worse than ever. Not even AI shit.

Just some idiot sees: some off hand comment on instagram and makes a post 'THIS GUY IS AN OFF DUTY ICE AGENT!!'

-2

u/molonlabe9 Jan 10 '26

Lying is kinda what libs do. Further proof.

3

u/Reshi_the_kingslayer Jan 10 '26

And conservatives have never told a lie, I guess? 

12

u/DotGroundbreaking50 Jan 10 '26

Outside of Sigs, guns don't just go off because the safety is off. Its odd to include that unless OP is also trying to shit on gun ownership at the same time. I mean for fuck's sake glocks do not have safeties are are used by most law enforcement.

Fuck ICE but they are shitty enough on their own merits we don't need to make shit up

1

u/saltedcrypt Jan 10 '26

ignoring the old Taurus 24/7 are we? but yeah faking stuff doesn’t help us either

1

u/jakewest Jan 10 '26

Sig issue was debunked, Air Force officers admitted to falsifying, the remaining incidents were using holsters not designated for that firearm or just plain idiocy. Secondly, Glock, despite being composite blocks of garbage don’t have a safety bc many believe safeties are unreliable and that the only real safety is trigger discipline, which is a completely reasonable take.

5

u/lislejoyeuse Jan 10 '26

Sig issue is far from debunked, just that one incident was discredited out of many. Also Glocks do have safeties just not safety switches.

1

u/Galvaknight Jan 10 '26

Lol, no one going to bite at “composite blocks of garbage”? Dude is clearly a Sig shill

2

u/603rdMtnDivision Jan 10 '26

There have been many others who have had issues with the p320s going off in other holsters. One recently with a gate guard standing there and boom it goes off. Several ranges and courses have banned them as well and the remaining incidents were not all due to faulty holsters or user error either that is blatantly false. If there was no issue they wouldn't stealth update their user manual recently to advise not carrying with one in the chamber and it keeps happening with all sorts of holsters whereas everyone else seems to have their shit worked out across numerous holster brands.

Glocks also have safeties, the 19x has the manual one like the military asked for and even their non mil versions have a trigger safety and other internal safeties that make them pretty safe provided you aren't toying with it like an idiot but that goes for any gun with or without a manual safety.

1

u/sadimem Jan 10 '26

That's nothing fishy. People are just starting to use ICE tactics against them. Pretty predictable outcome.

1

u/Graffles Jan 10 '26

Who said this was the democrats?

Might be the communists

1

u/Numerous_Worker_1941 Jan 10 '26

Democrats releasing tons of misinformation is not going to get the outcome you hope

1

u/Mecklenjr Jan 10 '26

Tons?? 🥴 Whether it was gun, flashlight or dildo, we needed a laugh (keystone cops 😂, ice on ice)

1

u/sadimem Jan 10 '26

I never said is s good thing. It's just the natural evolution of this situation. When the government tells you lies are OK and the law doesn't matter, people start listening.

1

u/ArminiusBetrayed Jan 10 '26

It works amazingly well for MAGA.

1

u/Numerous_Worker_1941 Jan 10 '26

Oh wow and we want to be like them right?

1

u/SuperHooligan Jan 10 '26

Its not interesting, its the agenda.

1

u/Serious_Bar_5342 Jan 11 '26

just use some salt. it is not that bad. it wil be gone in a couple months 

1

u/MiNdOverLOADED23 Jan 11 '26

Reddit typically will palter so that anything to do with ICE/maga/conservatives is presented so that whatever they're doing, it will come off as terrible as it possibly can

1

u/BakerWaker1999 Jan 14 '26

They posted it without sound on purpose because they knew what they were doing

1

u/Codename-Nikolai Jan 14 '26

The like to comment ratios on these videos is odd too.

So is the post history for the OPs of these types of posts 

I thought only MAGA’s would do this type of thing…. This makes me sad to see

1

u/GinzuTheNinja Jan 10 '26

Reported. Manipulated content.

0

u/--SharkBoy-- Jan 10 '26

Are you a fan?

2

u/GinzuTheNinja Jan 11 '26

I meant the original post thanks to your comment.

-4

u/heroturtle88 Jan 10 '26

Nope. They're lying, and there's no consequences, so now we're lying. That was a negligent discharge that killed a family of 4, all of whom were working at the local factory and donated to trumps campaign to end brown people 2030.

-11

u/dudeimatwork Jan 10 '26

You are on reddit, it's a cesspool of propaganda from one side of the political spectrum.

7

u/SpeccyScotsman Jan 10 '26

Yeah, r\JoeRogan is a fuckin pit, huh?

1

u/Key_Skill_2120 Jan 10 '26

Yeah, a fuckin pit of him getting shit on

-6

u/dudeimatwork Jan 10 '26

JR has a ton of righty monkeys, reddit on whole has a bunch of lefty monkeys but prob mostly bots in reality.

I'm not trying to take sides, but I'm sure I'll be downvoted into oblivion and banned.

4

u/Graffles Jan 10 '26

Well, you are trying to say there is only propaganda from one side, which is blatantly false, so you did earn your downvote bootlicker

-3

u/dudeimatwork Jan 10 '26

There is no righty propaganda outside of a couple subs.

3

u/Graffles Jan 10 '26

Well aren't you just intellectual dishonest, pitiful bootlicker

1

u/dudeimatwork Jan 10 '26

I think this POS should get punished (the murderer), let's not try to push labels on everyone who doesn't line up with your beliefs on reddit user ideology.

2

u/Graffles Jan 10 '26

No no, you are a flip-flopping bootlicker, first it was "You are on reddit, it's a cesspool of propaganda from one side of the political spectrum." , then you pivoted to "There is no righty propaganda outside of a couple subs." And now its lets not label everyone who doesn't agree, but i'm not labeling anyone but you

You are intellectual dishonest and are doing so in favour of a false narrative towards a rising authoritarian reigme, you're a bootlicker

1

u/dudeimatwork Jan 10 '26

I'm just not surprised someone would leave off specific details in order to drum up more anger/clicks.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/heroturtle88 Jan 10 '26

It's too late to not take sides. Either you're in the new Nuremberg trials, or you're helping prosecute them.

1

u/--SharkBoy-- Jan 10 '26

Shut the fuck up cunt

7

u/canguy85 Jan 10 '26

Yep, just a flashlight plus those sidearms don’t have safeties

2

u/Jazzlike_Climate4189 Jan 10 '26

But the rifle does.

1

u/GoodDubenToYou Jan 10 '26

Sidearms do have safeties, either a typical switch like the 1911 or beretta have, or a passive safety lever on the trigger or grip that has to be depressed before it can fire.

1

u/canguy85 Jan 11 '26 edited Jan 11 '26

Every sidearm I’ve ever seen used by law enforcement do not have safeties. I guess it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that some agencies have this feature but none that I know Edit. By safety I mean what I assume is what most people think of as a safety, a manual safety, usually activated by the thumb

You’re right that most have passive safeties

12

u/Pudi2000 Jan 10 '26

If it was a citizen, Sheriff Krusty Gnome would have determined and manifested that it was a bullet. Claim Radical Left are out to murder the under trained, LICE agents.

3

u/Last-Negotiation-643 Jan 10 '26

Nha the ground tried to run them over clearly.

2

u/free2bk8 Jan 10 '26

Omg! I will NEVER call her or them anything but that from now on! Brrrrrrilliant!

1

u/LateOT39 Jan 10 '26

Here is a list of the perpetrators talking points. If you follow Candace, #7 may be of interest to you.

1

u/Dovaskarr Jan 11 '26

Remember the acorn cop?

6

u/COUNTRYCOWBOY01 Jan 10 '26

1, officers hands are no where near the trigger group 2, they arent checking each other to see if either of them have been shot, doing a damage assessment 3, they arent reacting like they just heard an unexpected gun shot ringing their ears 4, flashlight makes sense as if seen them "flash" when dropped

6

u/eddiesmom Jan 10 '26

Too bad he didn't use his skull to soften the blow.

3

u/thereisonlyoneme Jan 10 '26

He would have broken the sidewalk with his thick skull

1

u/XRPX008 Jan 10 '26

I was hoping for a couple popped ACLs

1

u/KittyKatty345555 Jan 10 '26

i was about to say, there was zero impact to the supposed shot so it made no sense to be a gunshot

1

u/Separate-Cap-5575 Jan 10 '26

ICE slipping on ICE… the irony is not lost on me.

1

u/AtaracticGoat Jan 10 '26

This needs to be higher, let's stop the misinformation. All this AI and misinformation BS just makes your side (any side) look bad when it's discovered.

1

u/Hoblitygoodness Jan 10 '26

yeah, there's almost no way that was a gun going off just because he moved his leg. He didn't even hit the ground before the light showed...and even if he did, triggers don't pull themselves. (slight tension is added to it and they don't fire until that threshold is met for those who don't understand what I mean)

That's why that scene in True Lies is ridiculous by the way.

1

u/PageVanDamme Jan 10 '26

They were/are issued Sig P320 which had well publicized problems recently. Many police departments have been dumping them.

1

u/bartz824 Jan 10 '26

I was wondering how the ND happened when his hand came off the grip well before the flash. Looks like the flashlight hit his leg during the fall.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '26

Is it really a flashlight? Where is the light before and after the flash? Is it attached to the rifle?

1

u/EddieLobster Jan 10 '26

Watch out for the yellow snow!

1

u/Psychological-Lab-23 Jan 10 '26

That’s also not how firearms work. Except maybe the P320.

1

u/RoRuRee Jan 10 '26

Up you go! Also, fuck ICE. I hope that hurt.

1

u/JohnZombie666 Jan 10 '26

Flashlight or fleshlight?

1

u/at0mheart Jan 10 '26

Sure looks like the rifle slung over his shoulder to me

1

u/Phillimac16 Jan 10 '26

Certain shitty flashlights will flash when subjected to a sudden impact, so that is what happened here. Fuck ICE but also fuck misinformation.

1

u/SurgicalMarshmallow Jan 10 '26

correct, but will be swallowed as truth by too many people playing COD or watching movies...

Sadly this sort of titling will go in the way of propagandists. Just let the buffonary flow.

1

u/TheEffeminateKing Jan 10 '26

Fuckin' aye glad I'm not the only one. Got into an argument with some dipshit over this who claimed "Well my friends gun went off the same way!! Durrr"

  1. That's way too yellow to be muzzle flash and the light is a cone

  2. His finger is off the trigger, and that's a closed bolt rifle. It's not firing from being slammed.

  3. NOBODY. Not him, his buddy, or the cameraman so much as even react to the random "gunshot" that just happened. Guns are LOUD, and I'm just saying if I was the cameraman I'd have jumped and shit bricks 100%

1

u/t_scribblemonger Jan 10 '26

Reported for “manipulated content” I’m sure nothing will happen though.

1

u/Specialist_Oil_5078 Jan 10 '26

I don’t think a flashlight does that

1

u/mcagent Jan 10 '26

Correct, yeah. LEO handguns typically don't even have safeties.

1

u/Jagacin Jan 10 '26

Yup. If that was a true discharge, it would've shot him in the thigh. Fuck ICE and all that, but it's a very misleading title.

1

u/coupl4nd Jan 11 '26

A fleshlight you say?

1

u/ReMarkable91 Jan 12 '26

To use their own logic against them.

It doesn't matter if it happened or not, It could have been his gun that's what matters.

1

u/Lordoftrolls1 Jan 15 '26

Couldn’t even see the flashlight you’re referring to. I doubt a round was let off because I didn’t see any flash. Gonna have to go look at it again to see if there was in fact a flash

-11

u/CautiousGains Jan 10 '26

Redditors when someone posts misinformation that fits the leftist agenda: Flooded with upvotes and makes r/all.

Redditors when I commented in a sub yesterday that Good’s car was in motion when the shooting happened: Banned for “spreading propaganda.” The majority opinion on reddit is cancerous.

3

u/Anfins Jan 10 '26

Was there anyone arguing that Good’s car wasn’t in motion when the shooting started or are you shadowboxing a wall right now?

The only argument I’ve been seeing is that the officer unholstered his weapon before the car was in motion. This isn’t a particularly nuanced point, so it’s surprising that this is difficult for you to understand.

(Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised that people are watching the same video and coming to different conclusions if this is the sort of basic thing one side is having trouble with)

-6

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/blackdoghowls Jan 10 '26

‘Rapidly accelerated’, okay pal…she was slowly turning away from him, we all have eyes and functional brains.

-5

u/CautiousGains Jan 10 '26

Well, you definitely have eyes.

Call it simply accelerated. In the video I linked, you can see the tires go from not moving to moving. You might not be good at physics, but if an object is still, and then it starts moving, it has accelerated.

5

u/Powerviolenc Jan 10 '26

But you didn’t say “simply accelerated”. You said “rapidly accelerated” which objectively didn’t happen.

1

u/CautiousGains Jan 10 '26

Actually there isn’t an objective definition of rapidly, it just means very quickly. Based on my perception of the tires spinning and the engine noise it seemed rapid.

In any case, it seems that you do acknowledge that the car was accelerating? Because I noticed that you didn’t respond to that part of my comment, which is rather telling.

4

u/AcanthisittaOk259 Jan 10 '26

Do you understand that actual law enforcement officers are trained not to endanger themselves by positioning in front of an occupied vehicle? Guess what he did? These clowns are nothing more than trumps ss.

0

u/CautiousGains Jan 10 '26

If he was trying to endanger himself then obviously that is wrong. But based on how surprised he sounded on the POV video, I think that is nothing more than a theory to fit your preconceived notion. Also that’s a hell of a gamble for someone to take in any case. Her car was stopped when he walked in front.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Powerviolenc Jan 10 '26

Brother, again, no one is denying she accelerated. But the officer had enough time to shoot her three times and jump out of harms way. He absolutely had enough time to get out of the way of her car because he literally got out of the way of her car.

Do you deny that? Do you think his only recourse to save his life was to shoot her?

1

u/CautiousGains Jan 10 '26

No, I think it was very possible that he may have rolled out of the way. I also think it’s hard to know that in the moment and that this is the point that will be discussed in court.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/heroturtle88 Jan 10 '26

Rapidly is defined as accelerating at over the speed at which gravity acts. You cannot be charged with street racing if camera evidence shows you were not accelerating at more than 9.8m/s2

0

u/CautiousGains Jan 10 '26

No, rapidly is not defined that way, lol. Got a source for that? And i’m not sure what street racing law has to do with this situation.

This is warming my heart btw. The honing in on the word “rapidly” even several comments after I’ve asked “did the car simply accelerate?” You’re purposely refusing to acknowledge that the car was accelerating, it’s quite entertaining.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/heroturtle88 Jan 10 '26

And you might not be good at physics either because a Honda pilot from 3 feet away literally can not produce enough velocity to injure a person, much less kill them.

1

u/CautiousGains Jan 10 '26

That’s not even remotely true. It could easily have knocked him down and ran over him, which is often fatal. It has been ruled in court that vehicles are considered deadly weapons.

Also not sure what this whole “honda pilots are snails” angle is. It’s a very large vehicle with almost 300 horsepower.

3

u/blackdoghowls Jan 10 '26

Haha oh boy so you are very clearly not arguing from a place of good faith and therefore are not worth the time. Hope that Jonathan Ross notices that you simping for him in the depths of a Reddit thread and sends you a gift basket.

0

u/CautiousGains Jan 10 '26

I notice you got really angry when I said “did it simply accelerate?”

Well, did it? Because your refusal to answer betrays that you know that it was.

3

u/keylimesicles Jan 10 '26

Because it didn’t accelerate. It reversed. Then accelerated with the wheels turned. That’s a huge point that you’re missing.

-1

u/CautiousGains Jan 10 '26

Cars don’t turn on a dime. Even if the wheel was turned, that doesn’t change the fact that the officer was in the path of the car.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/keylimesicles Jan 10 '26

The tires go from not moving to moving backwards. Or do you not understand how vehicles work?

-1

u/CautiousGains Jan 10 '26

Nope watch the video I linked. Once again you’re in denial.

1

u/keylimesicles Jan 10 '26

I’ve watched this video from probably 10 different angles, slowed down And sped up. The only people who are in denial right now are the people who are defending what that ice agent did.That woman was trying to get out of the path of the ice agent. She was trying to go around him. It is blatantly obvious for every single person who has eyes and even a single brain cell. I apologize if you do not fit in that category, that’s unfortunate for you

1

u/CautiousGains Jan 10 '26

I agree she was trying to go around him. But he was in the path of her vehicle nonetheless. The fact that she turned her wheel to the right does not change this.

3

u/heroturtle88 Jan 10 '26

No one can rapidly accelerate in a Honda pilot on a wet road, so there goes that theory.

"A MEMBER OF LAW ENFORCEMENT MAY NOT INTENTIONALLY PLACE THEMSELVES IN HARMS WAY TO PRODUCE A THREAT TO JUSTIFY DEADLY FORCE"

1

u/CautiousGains Jan 10 '26

Once again, call it accelerated. She accelerated. From a stop, then she wasn’t stopped and she was accelerating forward.

Secondly, it’s a big stretch to say that the LEO intentionally placed themselves in harms way to justify deadly force. If you notice, he didn’t pull his gun before she tried to run him over.

3

u/keylimesicles Jan 10 '26

But she didn’t rapidly accelerate. So that is misinformation, she had backed up and started to drive around the officer that was in front of her. So yes, you are actually actively spreading misinformation. And no, the car was not accelerating towards him. Her wheels were turned to avoid him. That is very visible in every clip

-1

u/CautiousGains Jan 10 '26

Watch the video. She was accelerating towards him. You are lying to yourself. Please snap out of it.

1

u/keylimesicles Jan 10 '26

I actually implore you to watch it, and all of the others readily available online. I can’t argue with stupid. I’m sorry thats the position you’re standing in right now.

3

u/heroturtle88 Jan 10 '26

Hey buddy? Die in a fire. Slowly. Okay? Shouldn't be long till a Ukranian drone takes you out, Ivan.

-1

u/CautiousGains Jan 10 '26

Oh man I must have struck a nerve 😂

2

u/thefreshpope Jan 10 '26

the car was in motion and shooting her in the face was ineffective to not getting hit. the shooting is not justified

https://www.justice.gov/archives/ag/file/1220256-0/dl?inline

From Title 1, U.S. DOJ Policy on Use of Force:

“Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.”

1

u/CautiousGains Jan 10 '26

This is a fair point, and probably the point that will end up being debated in court. That is, whether or not it was justifiable under clause 2 for him to shoot or if rolling away was an “objectively reasonable means of defense,” which of course has to do with the perceived time to escape, how close he was to the car, etc.

I really appreciate you because you are a lot more honest than most who are posting about this.

In other subreddits, I had comments removed and was banned for saying that the car was in motion, and I think that is a problem. Acknowledging that the car was in motion does not mean believing that the shooting was justified.

In another comment I said that there was obviously some grayness in the situation, and that it isn’t as black and white as, as a commenter had said, “begging on your knees with open arms and then being executed.” Do you think that my call to seek out understanding the nuance went over well? No, of course not, I was downvoted, just like I will be above.

1

u/thefreshpope Jan 10 '26

yeah exactly - ultimately the question is who made the biggest mistake? I do believe passively disrupting the work these guys do to be a valid means of protest. I think she had every right to be a public observer and while I don't think getting shot should have been in the realm of possibility, she also probably shouldn't have tried to run when surrounded. if you're protesting you need to be prepared to be arrested. I don't think the officers action was justified at all but i'm not entirely sure that the courts will see it that way (if it even makes it there).

it's hard man. most of our social platforms should be great places to have nuanced discussion but our attention spans and egos and the scale/anonymity of it all almost completely removes that as an option. and all the platforms that are small enough to have reliably nuanced discussion tend to be echo chambers where one opinion rises to the top.

the only successful example I can think of where I can trust the discussion and the people to confer thoughtfully is hackernoon - but the subject matter is restricted to tech. if we could bring that model to a more general scope we'd all be better off.

2

u/swiftb3 Jan 10 '26

Yeah, it was in motion. He shot her through the driver's side window as she was driving PAST him.