What readers saw in videos of ICE agent killing a Minneapolis woman (Letters). 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Appeal to emotion

Using emotionally charged language or imagery to provoke feelings rather than relying on evidence and reasoning.

Letter 1 (Deborah Harvey): - "So Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem, Vice President JD Vance, and even President Donald Trump can spin their lies, but we will know what occurred." - "What’s disturbing is the rush to cover their asses and disparage the victim. Makes me want to throw up." - "This is what our nation has to face daily: an administration of liars and an agency that appears to believe they can do whatever they want and face no accountability. What’s next?" Letter 4 (Steven D. Kalavity): - "No one should be defending activists who engage in the most foolish and dangerous actions!" - "These activists would be much wiser to write letters... Officials should not be supporting kinetic protestors at all!" - "To support such actions is irreverent and, for an elected official, malicious." These passages rely heavily on disgust, outrage, and moral condemnation rather than presenting specific, verifiable facts about the incident or the officials’ actual statements and actions.

5 suggestions

Replace emotionally charged phrases with neutral descriptions. For example, change "spin their lies" to "offer their interpretations" or "present their version of events" unless specific, demonstrable falsehoods are cited.

Instead of "rush to cover their asses and disparage the victim," specify concrete actions: e.g., "Several officials emphasized the threat posed by the driver before full investigative findings were released, which I interpret as an attempt to justify the shooting."

Change "an administration of liars" to a more precise, evidence-based claim, such as "an administration that has made several statements about immigration enforcement that have later been contradicted by court findings or independent investigations."

In Letter 4, replace "most foolish and dangerous actions" with a factual description: "actions that significantly increase the risk of harm to both protesters and officers."

Avoid labeling support for certain protests as "irreverent" or "malicious"; instead, describe the potential consequences or legal implications of such support.

Unsubstantiated claims

Assertions presented as fact without providing evidence or acknowledging uncertainty.

Letter 1 (Deborah Harvey): - "So Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem, Vice President JD Vance, and even President Donald Trump can spin their lies, but we will know what occurred." (No specific statements or evidence of lying are cited.) - "This is what our nation has to face daily: an administration of liars and an agency that appears to believe they can do whatever they want and face no accountability." (Sweeping characterization without supporting data or examples.) Letter 2 (Kriss Perras): - "What is troubling is the rhetoric from some Democratic officials and commentators appearing to excuse violent conduct directed at ICE personnel." (No specific quotes or names are provided.) - "Clearly the vehicle was driven toward the agent." (Stated as fact without acknowledging that interpretations of the video may differ and that investigations are ongoing.) Letter 4 (Steven D. Kalavity): - "The Colorado resident, nice as they might have been, made a fatal error in judgment." (Assumes clear culpability before full investigative findings.) - "In this case, a life was lost by not complying with law enforcement." (Presents noncompliance as the sole or primary cause without considering officer decisions or policy violations.)

5 suggestions

Qualify broad claims with appropriate uncertainty. For example, change "administration of liars" to "an administration that, in my view, has frequently misrepresented facts about immigration enforcement."

When alleging that officials "spin their lies," provide at least one concrete example: quote a specific statement and reference evidence that contradicts it.

In Letter 2, instead of "rhetoric from some Democratic officials," name specific officials and provide direct quotations, or rephrase to indicate perception: "Some comments from Democratic officials have been interpreted by some observers as downplaying the seriousness of violence against ICE personnel."

Change "Clearly the vehicle was driven toward the agent" to something like "In the video I watched, it appears to me that the vehicle moved in the direction of the agent," and acknowledge that investigations will determine the official finding.

In Letter 4, rephrase "a life was lost by not complying" to "Noncompliance with law enforcement instructions appears to have been a factor in the chain of events that led to the shooting, though a full investigation is needed to determine all contributing causes."

Biased language

Use of loaded or derogatory terms that frame one side negatively or positively without neutral description.

Letter 1 (Deborah Harvey): - "spin their lies" - "cover their asses" - "administration of liars" - "an agency that appears to believe they can do whatever they want and face no accountability" Letter 4 (Steven D. Kalavity): - "most foolish and dangerous actions" - "kinetic protestors" (unusual, somewhat pejorative framing) - "To support such actions is irreverent and, for an elected official, malicious." These phrases frame the administration, ICE, activists, and officials in strongly negative moral terms rather than neutrally describing behavior or policy.

4 suggestions

Replace pejorative phrases with neutral descriptors. For example, change "administration of liars" to "administration whose statements I strongly distrust based on past discrepancies."

Instead of "cover their asses," use "protect themselves from criticism or liability."

Change "most foolish and dangerous actions" to "actions that significantly increase the risk of harm."

Replace "malicious" with a more specific description of concern, such as "may encourage risky confrontations with law enforcement" or "could be seen as endorsing tactics that escalate tensions."

Hasty generalization

Drawing broad conclusions from limited or specific instances.

Letter 1 (Deborah Harvey): - "This is what our nation has to face daily: an administration of liars and an agency that appears to believe they can do whatever they want and face no accountability." (Generalizes from one incident and unspecified behavior to the entire administration and agency.) Letter 4 (Steven D. Kalavity): - "No one should be defending activists who engage in the most foolish and dangerous actions!" (Implied broad condemnation of a category of activists based on this incident.)

3 suggestions

Limit claims to the specific incident or clearly defined patterns supported by data. For example, "In this incident, ICE agents appeared to act without sufficient accountability" instead of "an agency that believes they can do whatever they want."

In Letter 4, specify: "In this case, I believe defending the driver’s specific actions is misguided" rather than condemning all activists who might be perceived as similar.

If broader claims are intended, reference supporting evidence (e.g., statistics on complaints, investigations, or court findings) rather than extrapolating from a single event.

Confirmation bias / Narrative fallacy

Interpreting events primarily to fit a pre-existing narrative or worldview, often selecting details that support that narrative while downplaying ambiguity.

Letter 1 (Deborah Harvey): - The letter quickly situates the incident within a broader narrative of "an administration of liars" and an unaccountable agency, before full facts are known: "We don’t know why she was where she was; that will come out in the days ahead. ... This is what our nation has to face daily: an administration of liars and an agency that appears to believe they can do whatever they want and face no accountability." Letter 2 (Kriss Perras): - The letter frames the incident primarily as an example of political rhetoric endangering law enforcement, emphasizing "moral disengagement" and "delegitimization" of institutions, while treating as settled that the driver "attempted to use her vehicle to strike an ICE agent" and "completely disobeyed law enforcement instructions" without acknowledging evidentiary disputes. Letter 3 (John W. Thomas): - "It did not appear to me that the ICE agents were in any physical danger unless they placed themselves in it." and "There were no de-escalation tactics, instead they escalated to the lethal use of force." These are strong conclusions drawn from video alone, fitting a narrative of excessive force, without acknowledging investigative limitations or alternative interpretations. Letter 4 (Steven D. Kalavity): - "In this case, a life was lost by not complying with law enforcement." This frames the event as a straightforward consequence of noncompliance, fitting a law-and-order narrative, without considering officer decision-making, training, or policy constraints.

4 suggestions

Explicitly acknowledge uncertainty and the limits of available evidence. For example, "Based on the videos I have seen, it appears to me that... but a full investigation may reveal additional context."

Separate broader political critiques from the specific incident. For instance, in Letter 1, move general claims about the administration to a separate paragraph and clearly label them as opinion informed by a broader pattern, not solely by this case.

In Letters 2, 3, and 4, distinguish between what is visible in the video and what is inferred about intent or danger. Use phrases like "it seems," "it appears," or "in my interpretation" rather than categorical statements.

Encourage reference to independent investigations, official reports, or multiple sources rather than relying solely on one’s own viewing of video footage.

Oversimplification / False dilemma

Reducing a complex situation to a simple cause or binary choice, ignoring other contributing factors or nuances.

Letter 4 (Steven D. Kalavity): - "In this case, a life was lost by not complying with law enforcement. One can contest law enforcement in court, but not adjudicate from behind the wheel of a motor vehicle." This frames the death as solely the result of noncompliance, implying a simple causal chain and minimizing the role of officer decisions, training, rules of engagement, or possible miscommunication. Letter 2 (Kriss Perras): - The letter strongly implies that criticism of ICE risks normalizing violence: "When elected officials frame federal agents as inherently illegitimate or malicious, it erodes public trust and lowers social inhibitions against attacking them." While this dynamic can exist, the letter does not acknowledge that robust criticism can also coexist with nonviolence, creating a near-binary framing between criticism and increased violence.

3 suggestions

In Letter 4, rephrase to acknowledge multiple factors: "Noncompliance with law enforcement instructions appears to have been one factor in the chain of events that led to this tragic outcome, along with the officers’ tactical decisions and training."

In Letter 2, clarify that criticism of institutions is legitimate and does not inherently lead to violence: "While robust criticism of federal agencies is essential in a democracy, rhetoric that dehumanizes agents or suggests they are legitimate targets may contribute to a higher risk of violence."

Avoid implying that compliance alone guarantees safety or that criticism alone leads to violence; instead, discuss these as risk factors within a broader context.

Selective use of sources / Omission of key information

Relying on limited evidence (e.g., one video, one perspective) and not acknowledging other relevant information or uncertainties.

Letter 3 (John W. Thomas): - "I am sharing thoughts on the Minneapolis ICE shooting videos I have watched. It did not appear to me that the ICE agents were in any physical danger unless they placed themselves in it." The assessment is based solely on the videos the writer has seen, without acknowledging that other angles, reports, or witness statements may exist. - "There were no de-escalation tactics, instead they escalated to the lethal use of force." This is a strong claim based on the writer’s viewing, without noting that audio, prior interactions, or policy context may be missing. Letter 2 (Kriss Perras): - Cites "Social science research on political violence and moral disengagement" in general terms but does not reference specific studies, conditions, or limitations, which can give an impression of stronger empirical backing than is actually presented.

3 suggestions

In Letter 3, add qualifiers: "Based on the portions of video I have seen, it did not appear to me that..." and acknowledge that "a full investigation with all available evidence is needed to reach definitive conclusions."

Avoid categorical statements like "There were no de-escalation tactics" unless the writer has comprehensive evidence; instead, say "I did not observe any de-escalation tactics in the footage I viewed."

In Letter 2, either cite specific studies (authors, years, key findings) or soften the claim: "Some research on political violence and moral disengagement suggests that..." and note that real-world outcomes depend on multiple factors.

Appeal to authority

Using authority figures or credentials to support a claim in place of direct evidence or reasoning.

Letter 2 (Kriss Perras): - "Social science research on political violence and moral disengagement shows sustained rhetorical delegitimization of institutions increases the likelihood of real-world harm." This invokes academic research as an authority without specifying studies, contexts, or limitations, which can make the claim seem more definitive than warranted. Letter 3 (John W. Thomas): - "As a former member and chair of our city’s police Citizen Review Board, I am sharing thoughts..." The credential is relevant but may be read as implying that the writer’s interpretation of the video is more authoritative than others, even though it is still based on limited evidence. Letter 4 (Steven D. Kalavity): - "This AI-Gemini generated advice does not recommend trying to run the officer down!" This references an AI system as an authority on proper behavior during traffic stops, which is not a primary legal or ethical authority.

3 suggestions

In Letter 2, either provide specific citations (e.g., authors, years, and key findings) or rephrase to indicate that this is a general trend in the literature, not an absolute law: "Some studies suggest that..."

In Letter 3, keep the credential but emphasize that the view is still an opinion: "Drawing on my experience on a police Citizen Review Board, my interpretation of the videos is that..."

In Letter 4, remove or downplay the AI reference as an authority. Instead, cite official state guidance or legal resources: "Standard legal advice and many civil liberties organizations recommend..."

Framing effect

Presenting information in a way that strongly influences interpretation through word choice and emphasis rather than new facts.

Letter 2 (Kriss Perras): - The incident is framed primarily as "attempted vehicular assault" and "attempting to injure or kill law enforcement," which emphasizes one interpretation of the driver’s intent and risk level. Letter 3 (John W. Thomas): - The same incident is framed as "unnecessary escalation" and "unnecessary death," emphasizing officer overreach and lack of danger. Letter 4 (Steven D. Kalavity): - Frames the event as a "fatal error in judgment" by the driver and as an example of "foolish and dangerous actions" by activists, focusing on protester culpability. These framings push readers toward particular moral conclusions without fully presenting the underlying factual uncertainties.

3 suggestions

Encourage writers to separate description from evaluation. For example, describe the sequence of events as neutrally as possible before offering interpretation: "The video shows the vehicle moving forward as an agent is nearby; shots are then fired. In my view, this constitutes attempted vehicular assault."

Use explicit markers of opinion: "I interpret this as..." or "To me, this appears to be..." rather than categorical labels like "attempted homicide" or "unnecessary death" without context.

Acknowledge that other reasonable observers may interpret the same footage differently and that official investigations are ongoing.