What happened prior to baby tear gassed in MN
Executive summary
A Minneapolis family driving home from a child’s basketball game became trapped in clashes between federal immigration agents and protesters; during that encounter a chemical irritant and stun devices were deployed, a canister landed beneath the family’s SUV, and the couple say their six‑month‑old son stopped breathing and was later hospitalized after the mother performed CPR [1] [2] [3]. The incident unfolded amid heightened tension after a separate fatal shooting by an ICE agent in Minneapolis and has generated competing narratives from federal authorities, local officials, eyewitnesses, and advocacy reporters [4] [1] [5].
1. The immediate scene: a family in a car caught between protesters and federal agents
Multiple outlets report that Shawn and Destiny Jackson were trying to leave a protest area in north Minneapolis when law‑enforcement crowd‑control munitions — described as tear gas canisters and flash‑bangs — went off around their vehicle, one of which is said to have rolled under the SUV and triggered the airbags, filling the car with choking smoke [3] [2] [6]. The parents and bystanders say the couple’s six children, including a six‑month‑old infant, were forcibly evacuated from the vehicle by neighbors, and the mother performed mouth‑to‑mouth resuscitation after the baby briefly stopped breathing; several children were taken to hospital for treatment, including those with asthma [1] [7] [8].
2. The broader context: protests and an ICE shooting days earlier
The confrontation occurred in the aftermath of the fatal shooting of Renée Good by an ICE agent, which had already escalated demonstrations and federal operations in Minneapolis; officials say the night’s clashes involved large crowds confronting federal officers and that agents used crowd‑control measures to disperse people [4] [1] [9]. Reporting indicates a heavy federal presence and intensified tactics in the neighborhood in the days surrounding the shooting, a backdrop that defenders of the agents cite to justify dispersal tools and critics cite to demonstrate excessive force near residential areas and children [5] [9].
3. Conflicting accounts and official framing
Local government statements and the city’s initial reports attribute the children’s hospitalizations to tear gas deployed by federal agents, while the Department of Homeland Security and some federal statements have characterized the scene as one where officers faced assaults and projectiles from crowds — a framing used to justify use of munitions [8] [1]. The family, multiple local news organizations and community members describe a canister thrown or rolled under the car and flash‑bang detonations near the vehicle; video circulated showing the smoke and the parents carrying the infant to safety, but reporting also notes ongoing disputes over precise sequences and responsibility [6] [10] [3].
4. Patterns and partisan readings of the incident
Advocacy and investigative outlets situate the episode within a pattern they argue shows federal agents’ chemical munitions harming children and bystanders in Minneapolis and elsewhere, pointing to prior incidents at schools and residential areas; supporters of federal action emphasize officer safety amid volatile crowds [5] [9]. Tabloid and some online pieces have questioned the parents’ account and highlighted fundraising and social media activity around the story, illustrating how emotionally charged events quickly produce competing narratives that feed political and cultural divides [11] [12].
5. What reporting does — and does not — establish so far
Contemporaneous reporting establishes that crowd‑control munitions were used in the neighborhood, that a tear‑gas canister or chemical irritant affected a family inside a vehicle, that the infant required CPR and medical attention and that the family and bystanders aided the children to safety [2] [3] [8]. Sources diverge on intent, responsibility and the wider operational justification — facts that would require independent scene forensics, official release of body‑cam or vehicle footage, and transparent federal incident reports to fully resolve; those materials are not comprehensively presented in the cited coverage [1] [6].