OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

ICE Officer Shoots Venezuelan Migrant in Austin

13 sources · updated 2026-09-24
Left 33% Center 33% Right 33%
1 left · 1 center · 1 right

What happened

On Sunday, Sept. 21, 2026, an ICE officer shot Wilber Rafael Garcés Pérez, a 28-year-old Venezuelan working as a DoorDash driver, in the upper torso during an attempted vehicle stop in Austin, Texas, leaving a bullet lodged in his back. The officer who fired had been issued a body camera but was not wearing it; cameras on another ICE officer in the same vehicle and on an off-duty Austin police officer recorded the aftermath, including the sound of three gunshots, but not the moment of the shooting. Garcés Pérez was hospitalized and, hours later, transferred into ICE custody at the South Texas ICE Processing Center in Pearsall; he later returned to a hospital after losing movement in his arm, where doctors identified a fractured clavicle. Federal officials said he had a final order of removal after missing an immigration hearing; his attorney said he had entered legally to seek asylum, filed a change of address, and never received a notice sent to his prior address. A federal judge temporarily blocked his deportation, Austin police released body-camera video of officers helping him from the car after the shooting, and the Department of Homeland Security confirmed surveillance footage of vehicles with lights and sirens pursuing his car.
Sourcing check · Partly on the record · 3 articles

1 of 3 articles cite a named source for the story. It started with unnamed sources; a named source appeared within the hour.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 1 of 3
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: Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch and Department of Homeland Security
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 1 of 3
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: surveillance video, bodycam video
Credits another outlet 0 of 3
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 1 of 3
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. Here: e.g. “multiple reports”
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 Sep 23, 20:58 UTC by The Hill, with no named source. First named source within the hour, from Fox News. First document within the hour, from Fox News (surveillance video).
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

Left-leaning coverage omits pre-shooting surveillance of a siren chase that right-leaning coverage uses to challenge the unmarked-stop story. Right-leaning coverage at Fox News describes a DHS-authenticated tape of a pursuit with sirens of a speeding car. Left-leaning coverage on NBC News instead relays the attorney's account that he "didn't know it was ICE" after an unmarked truck hit him. Right-leaning coverage repeats that chase story and then contests it, so the left-leaning version is the thinner account of what preceded the shots. Left-leaning coverage leads with the officer who fired having been issued a body camera and not wearing it. Right-leaning coverage leads with Austin police video of the arrest after the shots and never mentions that the shooter went without his assigned camera. What threat, if any, did the ICE officer claim to see when he fired?
Bottom line

Only Fox News put siren-chase video in front of readers of the Austin ICE shooting, so a left-leaning audience never sees the stretch that looks like flight from identified officers.

The receipts — 6 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • DHS-authenticated surveillance video shows vehicles with sirens pursuing a speeding car driven by Wilber Rafael Garces Perez before the shooting contextin Fox News · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Surveillance footage shows no apparent damage to Garces Perez's car contextin Fox News · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • ICE said Garces Perez was the subject of a targeted vehicle stop and that resisting officers and evading arrest is a felony official statementin Fox News, New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • A federal judge granted an emergency order temporarily blocking deportation proceedings against Garcés Pérez legal rulingin NBC News, CBS News · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Video analysis found the ICE officer was standing to the side of the car and apparently fired through the rear passenger window contextin The New York Times · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Austin police bodycam shows officers assisting Garces Perez out of the vehicle rather than pulling him out contextin Fox News, New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets frame the encounter as unjustified force against an asylum seeker making deliveries who, his attorney says, did not know ICE was stopping him. They stress that he was shot in the back, that New York Times video analysis found the officer standing to the side of the car and apparently firing through the rear passenger window, and that the unused assigned body camera leaves the critical moment unrecorded. NBC News reports the attorney’s account that an unmarked truck sideswiped him and that agents “pulled him out of the car,” and it quotes a bystander saying officers “just shot him because he didn’t want to stop” and “This is unjust.” Coverage also highlights alleged mistreatment after he spoke from detention—revoked communication privileges, isolation, and being returned from the hospital with a bullet still lodged near his spine—and notes Democratic Reps. Joaquin Castro and Greg Casar’s demand for his release, a senior official’s statement that he had no criminal history beyond unlawful presence, and local officials’ calls for a transparent investigation.
The Right View
Right-leaning outlets frame the incident as a targeted stop of a man they describe as an illegal immigrant with a final removal order who fled officers. They quote ICE saying, “This illegal alien was the subject of a targeted vehicle stop,” that resisting and evading arrest “is a felony and a federal crime,” and that “Sanctuary politicians need to stop encouraging this dangerous behavior that puts our officers and the public at risk.” Fox News and the New York Post cite the DHS-confirmed chase footage, Austin police body-camera video they say shows officers assisting him out of the vehicle rather than pulling him out, and footage they say shows no apparent damage to his car, contesting the sideswipe claim. ICE said his work permit expired in 2025 and does not confer legal status, rebuffed claims he was indiscriminately targeted, and stated he was released from the hospital hours after the shooting and slept on a bed in detention.
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is that New York Times analysis of video showing an officer beside the car apparently firing through the rear passenger window, together with a wound in the back and the shooter’s unused body camera, supports a picture of force from behind against a driver his lawyer says did not know he was being stopped by ICE—compounded by disputes over care in detention. The right’s strongest argument is the combination of a final removal order, DHS-authenticated footage of a lights-and-sirens pursuit of a speeding vehicle, and ICE’s characterization of a targeted stop in which evasion is a felony, plus Austin police video that undercuts the claim agents pulled him from the car. The central unresolved tension is whether the shots were a response to knowing flight from a lawful immigration stop or an unjustified shooting of a driver who did not understand the encounter—an assessment left open because, as The New York Times put it, the events surrounding the shooting remain “murky,” and the officer who fired was not wearing his camera.

13 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.