A man shot by a border patrol agent in Minnesota did not have a weapon in his hand at the time of the shooting, according to analyses of video footage from the scene conducted by the New York Times and the investigative group Bellingcat.
Conflicting Accounts
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stated that the man, who died from the shooting, possessed a handgun and resisted agents as they attempted to remove it. Agents have justified the shooting as an act of self-defense.
However, the New York Times reports the man was holding a phone, not a weapon. Bellingcat’s analysis indicates a weapon was taken from the man prior to at least one agent firing.
Potential Next Steps
An internal investigation by DHS is a possible next step, as is a review of body camera footage and other evidence. Depending on the findings, legal proceedings could follow. It is also likely to be a subject of public debate and scrutiny.
Further analysis of the video footage may be conducted by additional groups. The incident could prompt a reevaluation of use-of-force policies within border patrol agencies.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did DHS say about the shooting?
According to DHS, the man had a handgun and resisted agents as they tried to take the weapon from him, leading agents to justify the shooting as self-defense.
What do the New York Times and Bellingcat report?
The New York Times and Bellingcat report that the man did not have a weapon in his hand at the time he was shot. The New York Times states he was holding a phone, and Bellingcat indicates a weapon had been removed from him before the shooting.
What could happen as a result of these conflicting reports?
An internal investigation by DHS is a possibility, as are legal proceedings. The incident is also likely to be a subject of public debate.
How might differing accounts of an event impact public trust in official statements?
