ICE SHOT A DELIVERY DRIVER. NOW THE GOVERNMENT IS PROSECUTING HIM.
Federal prosecutors say Wilber Rafael Garces Perez assaulted an ICE officer. His lawyers dispute the government's account. And the moment an agent shot him wasn't captured on body camera.
Aqua RichJo — October 1, 2026
The federal government has officially filed its version of what happened before an ICE agent shot 28-year-old delivery driver Wilber Rafael Garces Perez in Austin.
Now the government wants to prosecute him.
Federal prosecutors charged Garces Perez with assaulting, resisting, interfering with and impeding a federal officer in connection with the September 20 encounter. The criminal complaint was filed September 28, and Garces Perez made his initial federal court appearance the following day.
If convicted, prosecutors say he could face up to 20 years in federal prison.
But before anybody reads the charge and decides they know exactly what happened:
A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT IS AN ALLEGATION.
Garces Perez is presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
And there is another enormous issue:
THE SHOOTING ITSELF WASN'T CAPTURED ON BODY CAMERA.
So if the government wants the public to accept its account of why an immigration officer fired a gun at a man who was out delivering food that day, No Chill News has a very simple request:
RELEASE THE EVIDENCE.
HERE'S WHAT THE GOVERNMENT ALLEGES.
According to the federal criminal complaint, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations officers attempted to stop Garces Perez in Austin on September 20.
The government says officers were seeking him because an immigration judge had issued a final order of removal.
According to the complaint, Garces Perez initially provided his driver's license. Officers allegedly confirmed his identity and directed him to put his vehicle in park and get out.
Prosecutors allege he instead closed his window and drove away, striking one ICE officer in the torso with his driver's-side mirror.
The government says officers then pursued him with emergency lights and sirens activated.
According to prosecutors, the encounter eventually escalated again, and Garces Perez allegedly attempted to strike an officer with his vehicle.
That officer fired his gun.
That's the government's account.
IT IS NOT YET A JURY'S FINDING OF FACT.
And Garces Perez disputes critical parts of what happened.
GARCES PEREZ TELLS A DIFFERENT STORY.
Garces Perez has said an unmarked vehicle struck his car before an agent ultimately shot him in the back.
His attorneys dispute the government's characterization of the encounter and say the available video does not establish the government's entire account.
That distinction matters.
Because we're dealing with competing claims about an encounter involving federal law enforcement, a moving vehicle and the use of potentially deadly force.
This isn't the time to fill in missing pieces with assumptions.
THIS IS THE TIME FOR EVIDENCE.
AND HERE'S WHERE THIS GETS REALLY IMPORTANT.
The federal government's own affidavit says the two ICE officers involved were operating separate unmarked SUVs equipped with emergency lights and sirens.
One officer had a body-worn camera.
The other did not.
And according to AP reporting, the available footage does not capture the actual shooting.
So the most consequential moment of this entire encounter—
A FEDERAL AGENT FIRING HIS WEAPON—
isn't captured by that body-camera evidence.
That leaves some obvious questions.
Why wasn't the agent who fired wearing a body camera?
Was he required to be wearing one?
Was there dash-camera footage?
Surveillance footage?
Traffic-camera footage?
Nearby business footage?
Doorbell cameras?
Vehicle telemetry?
Radio traffic?
GPS data?
Photographs of the vehicles?
And if prosecutors say Garces Perez tried to strike an officer with his car, what physical evidence documents that alleged attempt?
Those aren't side questions.
THEY'RE CENTRAL TO THE CASE.
THERE'S ALSO A BULLET STILL IN HIS BODY.
Garces Perez's attorneys have said the bullet remains lodged in his back.
AP reported this week that he appeared in federal court in a wheelchair, while his attorneys argued that he needed medical treatment.
Earlier AP reporting said his attorney alleged he had experienced severe pain and inadequate treatment after being transferred into immigration custody. He was later returned to a hospital for treatment.
Those claims deserve documentation too.
What did doctors recommend after the shooting?
What treatment has he received?
Has surgery been recommended?
If so, why hasn't it happened?
If surgery has not been recommended, what is the medical reason?
What pain management is being provided?
What follow-up care has been ordered?
And what medical monitoring is being provided while he remains detained?
Medical care in custody isn't some side note because somebody has been accused of a crime.
DETENTION DOESN'T MAKE A BULLET DISAPPEAR.
NOW SHOW US THE OFFICER'S INJURIES.
The federal complaint alleges that Garces Perez struck an ICE officer's torso with his side mirror while driving away.
Okay.
Document it.
Was the officer injured?
Was medical treatment requested?
Was the officer evaluated?
Were photographs taken?
Was an injury report completed?
Did investigators photograph the mirror?
Was there damage consistent with contact?
Did forensic investigators examine either vehicle?
Again:
RECEIPTS.
Because these questions don't automatically prove Garces Perez's version either.
They test both versions.
That's what evidence is supposed to do.
TWO THINGS CAN BE INVESTIGATED AT THE SAME TIME.
This case does not have to be reduced to:
“Do you believe ICE?”
versus
“Do you believe Garces Perez?”
Investigators can determine whether Garces Perez committed a federal crime.
And investigators can separately determine whether the ICE agent's use of force was lawful and consistent with agency policy.
Those are different questions.
A person allegedly resisting law enforcement does not automatically make every subsequent use of force lawful.
And an officer's use of force does not automatically mean the person being arrested committed no crime.
INVESTIGATE BOTH.
With evidence.
THERE'S AN IMMIGRATION CASE UNDERNEATH ALL OF THIS.
Garces Perez is Venezuelan and entered the United States in 2024 through the CBP One process, according to AP.
AP reports that he had a valid work permit and was pursuing an asylum claim. A removal order was later entered after he missed an immigration hearing; his attorneys say the hearing notice went to an incorrect address.
His lawyers are separately challenging efforts to remove him from the United States.
Those immigration proceedings and the new federal criminal charge should not be collapsed into one thing.
The criminal case asks whether prosecutors can prove the charged assault offense.
The immigration proceedings involve his legal ability to remain in the country.
And the use-of-force investigation should determine whether the shooting was justified.
THREE QUESTIONS.
THREE PROCESSES.
DON'T MASH THEM TOGETHER.
WHO IS INVESTIGATING THE SHOOTING?
According to AP, the Department of Homeland Security and FBI have been investigating the incident.
That's another place where the public needs transparency.
Who is conducting the use-of-force investigation?
What agency has primary responsibility?
Has the officer who fired been placed on administrative duty?
Has his firearm been examined?
Has he provided a formal statement?
Have all witnesses been interviewed?
Has all available surveillance footage been collected?
What ICE use-of-force policy applied on September 20?
And will the findings eventually be released publicly?
Because if the federal government is going to prosecute Garces Perez publicly, accountability surrounding the federal officer's use of force shouldn't disappear behind:
“Internal investigation.”
VIDEO MATTERS BECAUSE MEMORY AND NARRATIVES CAN BE WRONG.
Body cameras aren't perfect.
They don't capture every angle.
They don't necessarily tell the entire story.
But they can provide independent evidence when the government and the person it arrested give conflicting accounts.
And in this case, the available footage apparently stops short of answering the biggest question:
WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED WHEN THE SHOT WAS FIRED?
That makes every other piece of evidence even more important.
Full body-camera footage.
Dispatch audio.
Radio transmissions.
Surveillance footage.
Vehicle damage.
Photographs.
Medical records.
Witness statements.
Ballistics.
Scene diagrams.
Use-of-force reports.
And the officer's account.
Preserve it.
Collect it.
Authenticate it.
Then let the evidence speak.
AND THERE'S A NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT MAKES THE BODY-CAMERA QUESTION EVEN BIGGER.
AP reported October 1 that new ICE internal guidance now prohibits high-speed vehicle pursuits and tightens requirements surrounding traffic stops. Under the new guidance described by AP, officers conducting vehicle stops must activate body cameras, and traffic stops generally must involve marked vehicles with emergency equipment and appropriately trained officers.
That guidance came after the September 20 shooting.
So it should not be retroactively presented as the rule governing Garces Perez's encounter.
But it raises an obvious policy question:
WHAT DID ICE LEARN FROM CASES LIKE THIS ONE?
And will the new requirements actually prevent future encounters where the public is left trying to reconstruct a shooting without footage of the shooting itself?
THE NO CHILL BOTTOM LINE
Federal prosecutors have filed their charge.
Garces Perez now has to defend himself in federal court.
And the government will have an opportunity to present its evidence.
Good.
NOW SHOW ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE.
Not because that evidence is guaranteed to clear Garces Perez.
Not because it's guaranteed to condemn the officer.
But because when a federal agent shoots somebody and the government's account becomes the basis for a felony prosecution, the public deserves the clearest possible factual record.
We want to know:
What happened before the stop?
What happened during the initial encounter?
Did Garces Perez strike an officer?
Was that officer injured?
What happened during the pursuit?
What happened immediately before the shot?
Why did the officer fire?
Why wasn't the shooting captured on body camera?
What physical evidence supports each side's account?
And what medical treatment has Garces Perez received since being shot?
Because the government has already put its allegation on paper.
NOW PUT THE EVIDENCE ON THE TABLE.
Until then, a criminal complaint remains exactly what the Justice Department itself says it is:
An allegation.
And Wilber Rafael Garces Perez remains presumed innocent unless and until the government proves otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.
No Chill News Where the tea is piping and the truth has no filter.
Comments