Did ICE mace a 6 month old child
Executive summary
A Minneapolis couple, Shawn and Destiny Jackson, say federal officers deployed tear gas and flash‑bangs at their minivan while six children — the youngest a 6‑month‑old — were inside, and that the infant briefly stopped breathing and was hospitalized [1] [2]. Multiple local and national outlets report the family's account and emergency response, while public statements from ICE/DHS about whether agents directly “maced” or deliberately targeted the vehicle are absent or limited in the reporting provided [3] [4].
1. What the parents and bystanders say happened
The Jacksons describe driving home with six children when law enforcement deploying crowd‑control munitions detonated a flash‑bang near or under their vehicle and rolled a tear‑gas canister under the van, filling the interior with gas as the family attempted to escape; the parents say bystanders pulled them into a nearby house and helped the infant after he stopped breathing [1] [3] [5].
2. Reported medical impact on the 6‑month‑old and other family members
Multiple outlets report that three children, including the six‑month‑old, were taken to hospital and that the infant “stopped breathing” and was briefly unconscious before being revived by the mother performing CPR; media accounts also say two children have asthma and that parents received treatment [5] [1] [2].
3. How law enforcement framed the incident in the reporting available
Coverage indicates Minneapolis police and federal agents were deploying tear gas and flash‑bangs to disperse crowds that night, but the Department of Homeland Security and ICE had not publicly corroborated the family's specific allegation that munitions were deployed directly at the minivan in the accounts cited here [4] [3]. Some reports note DHS described a “targeted traffic stop” in the broader scene but do not appear in these excerpts to admit deploying gas into the family’s vehicle [6].
4. Variations in media framing and potential agendas
National and local outlets uniformly relay the family’s dramatic account — from The New York Times and CBS Minnesota to Fox9, Global News and opinion outlets — but tone and context vary: advocacy‑oriented outlets emphasize a pattern of federal use of force and community harm [3] [7], while tabloid and commentary sites amplify emotive language and unverified witness claims [6] [8]. These differences reflect editorial choices about emphasis, and some outlets add broader political framing about federal deployments in Minneapolis that goes beyond the family’s immediate claim [9].
5. What can be concluded from the reporting provided
The reporting establishes that the family alleges ICE/federal officers deployed tear gas and flash‑bangs around or under their vehicle, that the infant stopped breathing and was hospitalized, and that first responders treated multiple family members [1] [5] [4]. The reporting in the sources given does not provide an independent, on‑the‑record admission from ICE or DHS that agents intentionally “maced” the infant inside the car, nor does it cite video or agency incident reports in these excerpts that conclusively prove how the munition reached the vehicle [4] [3].
6. Bottom line and recommended follow‑up
Based on the available reporting, it is accurate to say family members and multiple news outlets report that federal agents’ use of tear gas and flash‑bangs coincided with the infant’s hospitalization and that the parents say the baby stopped breathing after gas filled their van [1] [5] [2]; however, the sources provided here do not contain a direct, independent confirmation from ICE/DHS that agents intentionally sprayed or “maced” the 6‑month‑old inside the vehicle, so the claim remains an allegation in need of corroboration from official incident records, body‑cam or other primary evidence [4] [3]. Journalistic follow‑up should seek agency incident reports, medical records (with consent), video evidence, and official statements to move the account from allegation to verified fact.