The NY Times' Video of the Minneapolis Shooting

The NY Times has put together a video based on the bystander footage of the Minneapolis shooting. The video argues that "the motorist was driving away from — not toward — a federal agent when he opened fire." Here's the full video and then I'll have some comments below.

As I said yesterday, I think the early claims that this was an act of "domestic terrorism" went too far. I do think it's possible this driver had a political motive in placing her car in the middle of the street, but I don't think you can show she intended to kill someone based on this clip. My take from the start has been that the driver panicked and tried to get away, but in the process she drove her SUV at an ICE agent, hitting him with her car.

The NY Times clip basically confirms all of that but some of the wording is a bit slippery and imprecise. Let's start at 1:38 according to the transcript:

Let’s look at the scene again more closely. This is the agent who shoots the driver. He walks around the car filming and disappears from view. Other agents pull up and order the driver to exit her vehicle.

Now we're at 1:55 in the video:

One of them grabs at the door handle and reaches inside. The SUV reverses, then turns right, apparently attempting to leave.

This is misleading. The SUV does reverse, but when the driver puts it into forward gear, the wheels are still turned to the left. You can see the wheel spin slightly on the ice and then she begins turning it to the right.

Why does this matter? Because the moment she spins her wheels forward is also the moment the agent in front of the car pulls out his weapon. At the time he draws, she is not turning right and her intention to do so is not immediately clear. What the Times has done here is skip over the moment when the agent decided he was being threatened. They try to correct this by suggesting the next bit happened simultaneously. The transcript continues.

At the same time, the agent filming crosses toward the left of the vehicle and grabs his gun.

So what they've said is 1) the SUV turned right trying to leave and 2) the agent grabbed his gun. That's misleading and inaccurate. What they should have said, if they wanted to be accurate, is that the car surged forward, the agent drew his gun and then the wheels started turning right, suggesting the driver was attempting to leave.

And the next part is not any better. Starting at 2:10:

He opens fire on the motorist and continues shooting as she drives past. The moment the agent fires, he is standing here to the left of the SUV and the wheels are pointing to the right away from the agent. This appears to conflict with allegations that the SUV was ramming or about to ram the officer.

The agent pulled his gun when the car moved toward him. By the time the car turns to the right, he is almost on top of the hood. My guess is he is looking through the windshield at the driver, where his weapon is pointed, not down at his feet. In other words, he doesn't have the same perspective from 20 feet away and behind the car that we have. He saw the car move at him but may not see the wheel turning. Even if he did see it, he doesn't know for certain it won't turn again. The important thing is that the car is moving at him. 

And that bring us to the slipperiest part of the video at 2:32.

President Trump and others said the federal agent was hit by the SUV, often pointing to another video filmed from a different angle. And it’s true that at this moment, in this grainy, low-resolution footage, it does look like the agent is being struck by the SUV.

What I see, is the agent lean toward the hood of the car, possibly placing his left hand on the hood and leaning on it with his arm out straight. The car surges forward and seems to lift him off the ground and move him a couple of feet backwards. But notice the change in language in the next bit starting at 2:49.

But when we synchronize it with the first clip, we can see the agent is not being run over. In fact, his feet are positioned away from the SUV.

Do you see the difference. We've gone from an admission that "it does look like the agent is being struck" to a subtly different statement that the "agent is not being run over." These are two different things. Here's that bit again.

Here's my take which is of course subject to change if we get clearer video. It seems to me that the agent was struck or shoved backwards by the car. But he was not "run over" in the sense that no part of him ever went under the wheels. It's a subtle shift but I think the video, by changing the language at this critical point, tries to literally sidestep a key issue.

No, the agent was not run over, but was he struck by the car? Did the car impart a force to his body that moved him backwards? I think the answer is yes and so does the NY Times, it seems.

Does any of this matter? Well, maybe. The fact that the car moved forward at the agent before the wheels turned probably gives him a justification to pull his weapon and a justifiable fear for his safety. The fact that the car struck or shoved him back as the driver tried to flee probably justifies that first shot that went through the windshield.

Then it looks to me like the driver's mirror hits his hand with the gun as the car passes. However, once the car is past him, I'm not sure the 2nd or 3rd shot, which seem to have gone through the open driver's wiindow, is as legally justifiable as the first. 

It's still early and there's a lot we don't know but it seems at least possible that this case might come down to which shot hit and killed the driver. If it was the first shot, I don't think the agent will ever be convicted, if he's charged at all. If it was the 3rd shot that killed the driver? That's a much tougher case to make.

Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Hot Air's conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.

Join Hot Air VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.