Journalists have a critical role to play in covering a fatal use of force by any law enforcement officer. It’s the most basic form of holding power to account.
That responsibility is especially urgent after a federal immigration officer fatally shot a 37-year-old woman in Minneapolis on Wednesday, an incident that was captured on multiple videos and has prompted sharply conflicting accounts from federal, state and local officials.
Federal officials said the agent acted in self-defense, claiming the woman “weaponized” her vehicle. State and local leaders have forcefully disputed that account, with Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey calling it “bullshit” and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz describing federal statements as “propaganda.” Witnesses have also offered accounts that raise questions about whether the use of force was justified.
Editors and newsroom leaders now face a familiar but urgent set of ethical decisions.
Armed law enforcement officers are among the most powerful representatives of a government’s ability to limit the rights of its citizens. And when a cop kills someone, it is the job of the press to ask whether the use of force was appropriate.
Here are some of the issues editors face as they explain what happened in the fatal shooting and who, if anyone, should be held responsible for her killing.
Using videos of the shooting
The videos that have already surfaced are valuable documentation. They help the public see what happened, including the moment an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent fired his gun into the woman’s SUV. Other videos will surely surface. Once verified as authentic and undoctored, they can add important context and help the public better understand the sequence of events.
If videos or photos surface that show the victim’s death up close, editors might consider alternatives that reduce the graphic nature of the image, such as still frames, cropped footage or written descriptions. However, given the critical questions about the governmental use of force against an unarmed civilian, there is a compelling argument to be made for showing the public as many views of the incident as possible.
Newsrooms will need to weigh the potential harm of graphic imagery against the value of visual evidence in holding powerful institutions accountable. Transparency, clear labeling and thoughtful presentation can help audiences understand what they are seeing and why editors chose to publish it.
Expert analysis
Every police agency in the country has explicit policies about when deadly force is justified, along with training to support those decisions, including whether and when to shoot into moving vehicles. Now is a good time to seek out experts who can explain and review those policies, evaluate whether they were followed and share them with the public.
Educating people about local law enforcement’s use-of-force policies is a form of accountability journalism. It helps people understand the professional standards expected of their local police officers. And it allows the public to compare local standards to federal policies.
It’s not immediately clear how much training ICE agents receive on the use of deadly force or what specific policies govern their actions. It’s reasonable for that information to be part of the public record, although it’s likely the administration will fight to limit public scrutiny of ICE policies. By surfacing these policies and past training practices, reporters will help people reach their own conclusions about whether ICE is acting responsibly and within accepted professional standards.
Identifying the officer
It is standard practice for journalists to name a law enforcement officer who kills someone in the line of duty. Doing so gives the public a chance to understand the complete narrative of the event, including whether the officer has a disciplinary history, prior complaints, a criminal record or any other fatal uses of force.
Given that ICE officials routinely hide their identities, it’s likely the agency will try to shield the officer’s name. Officials may even suggest that naming the officer would endanger the officer or be an illegal invasion of privacy. Publishers should fight to exercise their First Amendment right to publish the officer’s name (assuming they have verified it) in the name of public interest.
Covering the protests
The press plays a significant role in telling the story of protests. Journalists are responsible for documenting how law enforcement responds to people expressing anger at their government, particularly when that anger stems from a fatal use of force.
That said, ignoring peaceful protesters and focusing only on those vandalizing property or inciting violence distorts the truth. That kind of framing can unintentionally reinforce official narratives and obscure the reasons people are in the streets in the first place. Newsrooms do their best coverage when they have a strategy for telling the whole story of protests, not just the most dramatic events.
These are just some of the ethical issues that will surface as the story unfolds. Good journalists will be accused of bias and irresponsible behavior simply for doing this work. The press should hold its ground. This isn’t about politics or points of view. It’s about holding the powerful accountable for their actions.
