US Citizen Shot by Immigration Officer in Chicago Files Lawsuit
Left 100%
Center 0%
Right 0%
2 left · 0 center · 0 right
What happened
In October of last year, during the Trump administration’s Chicago immigration enforcement surge known as Operation Midway Blitz, Customs and Border Protection agent Charles Exum shot Marimar Martinez, a 30-year-old Montessori teaching aide, five times while she was in her car. Martinez and another person at the scene were charged with using their vehicles to attempt to ram federal officers; federal prosecutors later moved to dismiss those charges after additional video was shown and after hearing records showed Exum had written in a Signal chat, “I fired 5 rounds and she had 7 holes. Put that in your book boys,” and had said he takes pride in his shooting skills as a firearms instructor. On Monday, about a year after the shooting, Martinez filed a federal lawsuit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act—agents cannot be sued directly—alleging negligence, battery, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. Her attorneys presented a commissioned reconstruction based on bullet markings, her wounds, and surveillance video, arguing she was driving away and Exum was not in the car’s path; Exum was not wearing a body camera, and the Department of Homeland Security said he had been placed on administrative leave.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 5 articles
5 of 5 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 5 of 5
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Marimar Martinez, Michael Gallagher, Christopher Parente, Chris Parente, Martinez's attorneys and Customs and Border Protection
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 5 of 5
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: lawsuit, court filing, expert analysis
- Credits another outlet 0 of 5
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 5
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 5, 20:31 UTC by The Hill, naming its source. First document in the first report, from The Hill (lawsuit).
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Right-leaning coverage leaves out that federal prosecutors dropped vehicle-ramming charges against Martinez after extra video of the scene, and that the agent later messaged colleagues about the shooting. Left-leaning coverage at NBC News reports both, and notes the government filed a motion to dismiss its own case. A reader who sees only the thinner account never learns that the first official story, that she used her car as a weapon, was abandoned, which changes whether the lawsuit looks opportunistic or overdue.
Right-leaning coverage at the Washington Examiner calls the shooting a "nonfatal incident." Left-leaning coverage instead treats the same event as a shooting her lawyers say nearly killed her.
What does the Justice Department now say happened in the street, given that it dropped the ramming case?
Bottom line
If you read only the Washington Examiner, you would not know prosecutors dismissed their own ramming case against her after extra video came out.
The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Federal prosecutors filed a motion to dismiss their own ramming charges against Martinez after additional video was shown
- Attorneys say new analysis shows the officer shot her as she was turning her car away from him
- Agent Charles Exum wrote in a group Signal chat that he fired five rounds and she had seven holes
- The Border Patrol agent was not wearing a body camera when he fired
- DHS said the agent was placed on administrative leave
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets frame the suit as showing an unjustified shooting and press for criminal charges against Exum. NBC News reports attorneys alleging that new evidence shows “the agent was not in danger for his life and should face criminal charges,” and Michael Gallagher said, “The reality is the shoot wasn’t justified.” Coverage foregrounds the reconstruction’s claim that a bullet through the side of the rear passenger-side seat showed Exum “could not have been standing in front of the car,” and Gallagher’s assertion that “he charged her” while she “was actually driving away from him.” The Hill and NBC News also emphasize her injuries, her warning not to “normalize what’s happening,” the dismissed ramming charges, Exum’s chat messages, and the call for the Justice Department and local prosecutors to charge him; DHS referred questions to DOJ, which declined to comment on the litigation.
The Right View
The Washington Examiner frames the story as a civil suit against the Trump administration over a “nonfatal incident,” reporting that Martinez argues the government is liable for the agent’s “negligent acts” under the Federal Tort Claims Act. That account does not take up the reconstruction, the agent’s messages, or the dismissal of ramming charges, presenting the filing itself rather than a conclusion that the shooting was unlawful.
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is that the reconstruction—especially the rear-passenger-side bullet path—together with the dismissed ramming charges and Exum’s marksmanship boasts, shows he was not in danger and fired without justification. Right-leaning coverage’s strongest available framing is that this is a civil negligence claim from a nonfatal shooting, without treating those materials as proof the force was unlawful. The central unresolved tension is whether Exum faced an imminent threat from Martinez’s vehicle when he fired, or whether she was already turning away—a dispute over position and timing that remains unsettled without body-camera video.
3 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.