Did ice shoot a 6month old

1. What the sources actually report about the infant’s condition

Local station reporting and neighborhood accounts say a six‑month‑old was among several children taken to hospital after law enforcement deployed crowd‑control munitions; parents said the youngest “stopped breathing” briefly after tear gas and flash‑bangs affected the vehicle, and two children — including the six‑month‑old — were transported for care ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Fox9 quotes the father saying flash‑bangs detonated near the van and tear gas filled the interior, setting off airbags and leaving the infant unable to breathe momentarily ^[1]; Sahan Journal similarly records the child being taken to hospital after brief breathing trouble ^[2].

2. No source alleges the infant was shot — that allegation is unsupported

Across the cited coverage — CNN, ABC, Fox9, Sahan Journal, Mirror US and others — the documented uses of force were flash‑bangs, tear gas and at least one federal agent firearm discharge at a separate nearby incident involving an adult; none of the articles report any agent firing at or hitting a baby with a bullet ^{[4] [5] [1] [2]}. The broader context includes federal agents shooting an adult and a separate fatal shooting a week earlier that sparked protests, but the infant’s injuries are consistently described as caused by gas/explosive crowd‑control effects, not gunfire ^{[4] [6] [7]}.

3. Conflicting narratives, eyewitness accounts, and why confusion spread

Eyewitness panic, overlapping chaotic incidents, and rapid social posts help explain how an initial claim might be misread or amplified: protests, tear gas, flash‑bang detonations, and separate shootings occurred within hours and blocks of each other, and parents and bystanders reported frightening scenes where children lost breathing temporarily ^{[4] [1] [3]}. Tabloid and social posts used emotive phrasing (“stop breathing,” “refuse to call 911”) that can be read as implying a shooting when the contemporaneous local reporting attributes the medical distress to the effects of tear gas and blast ^{[3] [1]}.

4. Official investigations and limits of available reporting

Authorities have said federal and state agencies are investigating the shootings and deployments — the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and DHS are referenced in coverage of the separate adult shootings — but there is no publicly released investigative finding in the provided sources directly ruling on the infant’s treatment beyond hospital transport and parent statements ^{[5] [8]}. Reporting shows the medical outcome was a brief respiratory distress requiring ambulance care for the infant, but detailed medical records, an official incident summary about the children, or body‑worn camera footage covering the van’s interior are not present in the cited reports ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Alternative viewpoints and implicit agendas in coverage

Pro‑law‑enforcement summaries emphasize that agents faced violent crowds and that an agent shot an adult who allegedly attacked him, while local officials and community voices stress that federal tactics endangered residents and children — the sources reflect both frames ^{[8] [5] [4]}. Sensational outlets and social posts have incentives to amplify the most emotional interpretation (Mirror, Daily Mail excerpts in the file), and community advocates have an implicit agenda to document harm from federal deployments; both dynamics can skew initial headlines even when factual reporting is narrower ^{[9] [10] [3]}.

6. Bottom line

Based on the provided reporting, ICE did not shoot a six‑month‑old; the child was reported to have briefly stopped breathing after exposure to tear gas and nearby flash‑bang and was transported to hospital, and multiple outlets describe that medical outcome rather than any gunshot wound ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The tragic sequence of violent confrontations and crowd‑control measures explains why urgent, emotionally charged claims circulated, but the materials cited here do not substantiate that an infant was shot by ICE.