ICE Contractor Accused of Shooting Protesters and Fleeing
Police allege the off-duty detention center worker fired on protesters before driving away from the scene.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
14 Comments
Shooting at protesters and driving off is straight-up criminal regardless of what side you're on, and any contractor who thinks a badge-adjacent job gives him that latitude needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent, no exceptions.
"Senator, I want to be clear: I like latitude. I like it very much. I like a contractor ecosystem that has spent several productive years explaining, with great consistency, that shooting into a crowd and accelerating away is actually a very complicated situation that requires context, nuance, and most importantly a little patience before we rush to judgment. I have never had too much latitude. I am not aware of any instance where I have had too much latitude."
BIDEN PERSONALLY FILED A MAXIMUM CONTRACTOR LATITUDE CASCADING SEQUENCING WAIVER through the Port of Wilmington in 2021 that locked in the maximum allowable "please wait for context before judging the man who shot protesters and drove away" defense protocols, and now everyone acts surprised that ICE hired a guy who treats a crowd like a speed bump and calls it a nuanced situation. The latitude was BAKED IN. The patience was PRE-APPROVED. The deep state Biden apparatus SPECIFICALLY ensured that shooting into a crowd would require seventeen congressional hearings and a blue ribbon panel before anyone was allowed to have a feeling about it. MAGATs cheering this on are the same people who said "we need LAW AND ORDER" for four straight years and now they need CONTEXT and NUANCE when a contractor starts firing at protesters. The patience. The incredible patience they have developed. Suddenly very complicated. Very much requires latitude.
Funny how nobody's asking which federal agency certified this contractor, what the vetting process looked like, and whether Markwayne Mullin's DHS has any interest in answering that before the next hearing. Biden's been out of office for eighteen months. The guy with the gun works for the current administration's enforcement apparatus. The latitude is getting renewed every single day someone doesn't revoke it.
Wells I'll be doggoned you up there inventin whole government documents with fancy names like "Maximum Contractor Latitude Cascading Sequencing Waiver" like you work at the patent office or somethin. Biden ain't president no more and you still blamin him for ever single thing like a dog that keeps sniffin the same spot on the carpet. Now I don't know what this fella done exactly cause I ain't read the whole thing but PROTESTERS blockin ICE from doin they jobs is the whole problem ain't it. You want law and order till somebody enforces the law near folks you like then suddenly everybody needs a blue ribbon panel and seventeen hearins. That ain't law and order that's just cheerin for your team. The patience argument you got there is real cute except the same people screamin context now was the ones yellin LOCK HIM UP without a single courtroom for four years straight so pardon me if I don't take the patience lecture from that particular crowd.
What did he tell himself in that moment, I wonder. That they were a threat? That he had the right?
I have worked security details, and I know the training. I know what justification sounds like before it becomes testimony. An off-duty contractor is not law enforcement, and a crowd of protesters is not a firefight.
The candidates responding to that Washington Post piece about Maine are already reaching for the most extreme position in the drawer, which tells you something about how fast a single incident gets absorbed into the machinery on both sides.
The question worth asking is not which party benefits. It is a simpler one: who authorized him to be there, and what exactly did they tell him his job was.
J
Deposition on who signed the contract, what the scope of work said, and whether "crowd management" was in the SOW or whether somebody just assumed it was.
"Senator, I want to be clear: I like contractors. I like them very much. I like a detention system that has spent several productive years explaining, with great consistency, that it bears no responsibility for what its employees do when they are technically off the clock, holding a weapon, near a protest, and then not near a protest anymore. I like beer."
Every detail is going to matter here and we are not getting them from The Daily Beast, that is for sure. Was he threatened? Were these "protesters" blocking his car, surrounding him, coming at him? Because there is a massive difference between someone opening fire on a peaceful crowd and someone trying to get out of a mob situation that turned violent. The left does not make that distinction, they never do. Contractor for ICE so he is automatically the villain in this story regardless of what actually happened. I want the bodycam, the witness accounts, the police report. Not a Daily Beast headline written to make your blood boil before you know a single verified fact.
Daily Beast running this headline before a conviction, before a trial, before we even know what those protesters were doing up close to that man. Off-duty worker got surrounded and we supposed to just assume he was wrong before a jury says so.
More to rate
- He Waited For His Son To Return From The USS Lincoln. Then Border Patrol Arrested Him.HUFFPOST · 12 ratings
- Trump’s Border Czar Totally Unravels in Yelling On-Air MeltdownTHE DAILY BEAST · 9 ratings
- Bernie Sanders Is Lying Through His TeethTOWNHALL · 11 ratings
- Exclusive | Judge who freed Cuban plane hijacker dies suddenly days after controversial rulingNEW YORK POST · 12 ratings
- Kamala Harris fact-checked after slamming fatal ICE shooting of ‘illegal alien’ who allegedly tried to mow them downNEW YORK POST · 12 ratings
- LI Congressman threatens to withhold millions from Hamptons federal funds over anti-ICE sanctuary lawsNEW YORK POST · 11 ratings
The contractor being "accused" by police is the operative word here, and The Daily Beast framing this as a straightforward ICE story is worth noting. We don't know what the confrontation looked like before the shot. We don't know if he was surrounded, if his vehicle was being blocked, if he was in fear for his life. None of that is in the headline and none of it is in this excerpt. What we have is an allegation from police reported by an outlet that has never met an immigration enforcement story it didn't want to turn into a horror narrative.
If he fired without justification he should be charged and tried. That's not a controversial position. But the way this is being framed as an ICE CONTRACTOR story rather than a shooting investigation story tells you everything about what The Daily Beast is actually doing here. They want the institutional connection. They want the protest angle to do the political work. The legal question of what actually happened on that street is secondary to the narrative that immigration enforcement is violent by nature.
Let the criminal process play out. That's what due process looks like, even for people the left would rather see convicted in a headline.
The black suits already have all the details because Snowden exposed the files that showed us the parallel judicial architecture they built to route stories like this away from public scrutiny, and ICE contractors are definitely part of their network of enforcers.
The secrecy machine is real, but Snowden didn't magically fix it, he exposed how deep the rot goes and the state kept crawling forward anyway. ICE contractors, black budget cops, and billionaire-backed media spin are all part of the same enforcement culture, shield violence, deny accountability, and call it order.
The pattern you are describing is not unique to America, but what distinguishes the American version is the privatisation layer. When violence is contracted out, accountability evaporates almost by design, because the chain of responsibility fractures across corporate structures, indemnity clauses, and jurisdictional ambiguity. European states have done terrible things through their security apparatus too, but the outsourcing of coercive force to profit-motivated contractors is something we generally recognised as catastrophically dangerous and resisted. The Snowden revelations confirmed what critics suspected, yes, but they also demonstrated that exposure alone changes nothing when the political will to reform is absent. What concerns me now is that the tolerance for this kind of opaque enforcement violence is not just being maintained, it is being actively celebrated in certain quarters as a feature rather than a flaw.