Did ice tear gas a van with 6 month old baby in Minneapolis
Executive summary
Multiple news outlets report that a Minneapolis family says federal agents deployed tear gas and flash‑bang grenades near their van during clashes on January 14, and three children—including a 6‑month‑old—were hospitalized after the infant briefly stopped breathing, according to the parents and local emergency responders [1] [2] [3]. The narrative rests primarily on the family’s account and contemporaneous local reporting; the Department of Homeland Security characterized the broader action as a “targeted traffic stop,” and there is no independently verified public evidence in these reports proving an agent intentionally rolled a canister under the vehicle [4].
1. The family’s account: tear gas, flash bangs and a stopped infant
Shawn and Destiny Jackson told multiple local outlets they were inside a minivan with six children when flash‑bang grenades detonated and tear gas filled the vehicle, and Destiny Jackson said the 6‑month‑old “stopped breathing” and required CPR before ambulance transport; that account appears in video interviews captured by local TV and cited widely by national outlets [1] [2] [5]. Reports say bystanders tried to flush the children’s eyes with milk and that three children—ages 6 months, 7 and 11—were taken to hospital by ambulance [1] [6] [3].
2. How multiple outlets framed the incident and what they corroborated
Local stations (KMSP/FOX 9, KSTP, WCCO/CBS Minnesota) and national outlets (The New York Times, Newsweek) published the Jacksons’ statements and emergency‑response details, and Reuters and others circulated images and context about federal agents’ crowd‑control activity the same night; the city’s fire department confirmed responding to a medical emergency at the intersection where the family was treated [1] [2] [3]. Those reports consistently describe law‑enforcement use of tear gas and stun grenades in the vicinity and the subsequent hospitalization of children, relying on first‑hand family testimony and emergency responder activity logs as reported [5] [3].
3. Federal response and official framing differ from the family’s allegation
The Department of Homeland Security tweeted or otherwise issued language saying federal officers were conducting “a targeted traffic stop” when gunfire occurred nearby, a statement noted in local reporting; that description does not directly confirm the family’s claim that an agent rolled a canister under their van or intentionally gassed the interior [4]. None of the provided reporting includes a DHS or ICE statement explicitly admitting the agency deployed a canister under the vehicle or confirming the specific actions the family alleges, so the claim remains an allegation reported by multiple outlets rather than a fully established fact in public documents [4] [2].
4. Context matters: protests, prior use of crowd‑control munitions, and competing narratives
The incident occurred amid volatile protests after an ICE shooting in Minneapolis, and several outlets emphasized that federal agents had deployed crowd‑control munitions in the area that night, a context that frames both the family’s account and ICE’s operational justification [6] [7]. Some publications with activist or partisan leanings repeated the Jacksons’ accusations emphatically; others presented the family’s claims alongside agency statements or the city’s emergency‑response confirmation, creating different emphases but similar core facts about hospitalizations and tear‑gas use nearby [8] [9] [10].
5. What is established, what remains unproven, and why that matters
What is established in the reporting: the family says tear gas and flash‑bangs entered their minivan, an infant briefly stopped breathing and three children were taken to hospital, and first responders treated the family at the scene—claims documented by multiple local and national outlets [1] [2] [3]. What is not established by these reports: independent, corroborating evidence in the public record directly proving an ICE agent rolled a gas canister under the van or that the action was intentional; DHS’s public framing described a traffic stop rather than acknowledging the specific allegation [4]. That evidentiary gap means journalists and investigators must treat the family’s account as a serious and corroborated claim about harm while distinguishing it from an adjudicated or officially confirmed finding about tactical intent.