The two federal immigration agents who fired on Minneapolis protester Alex Pretti are identified in government records as Border Patrol agent Jesus Ochoa and Customs and Border Protection officer Raymundo Gutierrez.
The records viewed by ProPublica list Ochoa, 43, and Gutierrez, 35, as the shooters during the deadly encounter last weekend that left Pretti dead and ignited massive protests and calls for criminal investigations.
Both men were assigned to Operation Metro Surge, an immigration enforcement dragnet launched in December that sent scores of armed and masked agents across the city.
CBP, which employs both men, has so far refused to release their names and has disclosed few other facts about the deadly incident, which came days after a different immigration agent shot and killed another Minneapolis protester, a 37-year-old mother of three named Renee Good.
(more at link)
I really dislike that story and the traction it has gained because she did pretty much no follow through. ICE is able to get away with a paper-thin layer of doubt by saying “well she wasn’t actually hired” because she wasn’t. Why did she not at least show up for orientation? Why didn’t she use the opportunity to make a report on the training ICE receives? Why did the whole thing end after she was extended an offer?
I am 100% not defending ICE, you’d have to be a real piece of shit to think any of what they’re doing is acceptable. But… This is really not an uncommon tactic for HR at large orgs with tons of candidates for unskilled positions. Background checks take time, they cost money, they will often extend offers to nearly everyone and only bother checking once the person has shown up, because it’s a waste of resources to do it for everyone. Do you know how many stories there are of people getting hired on at big companies only to be let go a few days after starting when their background check starts popping up red flags? And yes, ICE should not be run that way. But that’s not the point, the point is this is a story put out by a journalist calling out a very common practice and people getting outraged because they don’t realize it’s a really common practice.
It just feels… I don’t know what the word is. Not fake. Not a distraction exactly. But… Like planned opposition? Like a story that’s technically true enough that it pisses off the left, but filled with enough inaccuracies and hyperbole that the right can easily handwave the criticism away and use it as evidence that leftwing media is overreacting. Basically, intentionally focusing on the wrong story rather than the actual issue. A good example is the types of warrants being used by ICE. That seems to be a big focus of stories and the left latches on to them going “omg, they are arresting people and breaking down doors with the wrong type of warrant which makes it illegal!” Meanwhile the right goes “so what? It’s still a warrant. Complaining about the wrong type just seems like a desperate attempt to claim a technicality.” And all the while, the conversation about what ICE is actually, physically doing to people and the harm they cause gets lost in the noise. So both sides get evidence that they’re correct.
This is a government job, one where they give a gun to someone.
Falsifying a background check for a job where you give someone a gun is horrifying, and whoever falsified that document should face criminal charges.
This is a government job, one where they give a gun to someone.
Falsifying a background check for a job where you give someone a gun is horrifying, and whoever falsified that document should face criminal charges.
This is a government job, one where they give a gun to someone.
Falsifying a background check for a job where you give someone a gun is horrifying, and whoever falsified that document should face criminal charges.
This is a government job, one where they give a gun to someone.
Falsifying a background check for a job where you give someone a gun is horrifying, and whoever falsified that document should face criminal charges.
This is a government job, one where they give a gun to someone.
Falsifying a background check for a job where you give someone a gun is horrifying, and whoever falsified that document should face criminal charges.
This is a government job, one where they give a gun to someone.
Falsifying a background check for a job where you give someone a gun is horrifying, and whoever falsified that document should face criminal charges.
This is a government job, one where they give a gun to someone.
Falsifying a background check for a job where you give someone a gun is horrifying, and whoever falsified that document should face criminal charges.
This is a government job, one where they give a gun to someone.
Falsifying a background check for a job where you give someone a gun is horrifying, and whoever falsified that document should face criminal charges.
This is a government job, one where they give a gun to someone.
Falsifying a background check for a job where you give someone a gun is horrifying, and whoever falsified that document should face criminal charges.
This is a government job, one where they give a gun to someone.
Falsifying a background check for a job where you give someone a gun is horrifying, and whoever falsified that document should face criminal charges.
This is a government job, one where they give a gun to someone.
Falsifying a background check for a job where you give someone a gun is horrifying, and whoever falsified that document should face criminal charges.