ICE agent kills man who tried to run him over in Houston's East

@Jx5673 : I have no problem with flock cameras. I hear people say it violates their 4th Amendment rights. There are cameras everywhere these days, homes, business, dash cams, etc. If you're not doing anything 'wrong', what should you care considering the footage can assist LEO in apprehending nefarious individuals that those same people want off the street in the first place.
Your position?

ExCTGuyInTX : I agree 100%. Curious why law enforcement are not wearing body cams.

TEXASGIRLMAMMA : I'm ok with that!

ExCTGuyInTX :
read what you want. the 2 ICE agents in my family say they had directives re President Trump changing Biden's rule on ICE and CBP wearing cameras, in April 2025. I would put you in touch with my family members, but they would see no need to speak to you. Their directives and info are from a site that None of us can access, and they do not share. Asked and Answered.

@Jx5673 :
Why anyone would give you a thumbs down on questioning why law enforcement is not wearing body cams is something I can't understand.
Oh wait, I suspect the person supports a certain political leaning --->.

ExCTGuyInTX : I believe it's an immature person who doesn't like intelligent dialect. I don't believe political opinions play a factor in this.

LittleTexas :
That would be an executive order not law. LittleTexas ExCTGuyInTX :
Very interesting…
I don't doubt your family members work for ICE or that they may have received internal guidance. (Actually thought you were going to say you work for them…)But that's a lot different than saying there was an April 2025 law or executive order that ICE and CBP don't have to wear body cameras.I actually looked because I wanted to know. I couldn't find any law or executive order saying that. What I did find is that President Trump rescinded President Biden's 2022 policing executive order in January 2025. Then, in February 2025, ICE issued its own Body Worn Camera Directive (19010.3), which says officers who have been issued body cameras are generally required to activate them during enforcement activities.If you're talking about a different law, executive order, or official directive, I'd honestly like to read it. Please post the source.What gives me pause is your statement that this came from internal communications "that none of us can access." If that's really the case, it seems odd that nonpublic internal agency communications would be discussed outside the agency and then presented as fact on a public neighborhood forum. That's exactly why I prefer to rely on publicly available laws, executive orders, and official agency directives that everyone can verify instead of secondhand information that none of us can independently confirm.

e : very accusatory. I do know my boy was told not to pack his body cam on some missions due to rf signals triggering ieds. They weren't around for me. With the hate towards individual agents for following their direct orders, I'm not surprised precautionary measures are taken.
I will add I'm not savvy on this technology but would think in this urban environment electronic signals would be too abundant to target specific body cams.

ExCTGuyInTX:
Nice observation It only took 2 days for someone to catch the spelling error.

cbear : We really should!

EasyPeasy :
www.usatoday.com/sto ry/news/nation/2026/ 07/10/ice-shooting-h ouston-lorenzo-

cbear : Will these idiots never learn?

[quote-tag-mismatch]e : very accusatory. I do know my boy was told not to pack his body cam on some missions due to rf signals triggering ieds. They weren't around for me. With the hate towards individual agents for following their direct orders, I'm not surprised precautionary measures are taken. I will add I'm not savvy on this technology but would think in this urban environment electronic signals would be too abundant to target specific body [quote-tag-mismatch]e : very accusatory. I do know my boy was told not to pack his body cam on some missions due to rf signals triggering ieds. They weren't around for me. With the hate towards individual agents for following their direct orders, I'm not surprised precautionary measures are taken. I will add I'm not savvy on this technology but would think in this urban environment electronic signals would be too abundant to target specific body cams. #msg5963937[quote-end-tag-mismatch]@Jx5673 :
Lol, I'm not sure how my comment was accusatory. I wasn't accusing anyone of anything-I was simply encouraging caution. As someone who has been around military families, we've always been reminded that OPSEC matters and that we should be mindful of what we share publicly about operations, policies, or procedures. I think that's good advice for everyone, especially given how charged this issue has become.Ironically, your own example seems to support the point I was making. You shared that your son, who works for ICE, was instructed not to wear his body camera during certain missions because of RF/IED concerns. That suggests operational decisions can be based on mission requirements rather than simply funding or equipment availability. That's all I was saying-that there can be reasons we may not know, which is why I suggested caution before drawing conclusions.

e : my son is not ice. Army. I was inferring to your claiming another poster did not have family members involved with ice.