Federal prosecutors on Tuesday, September 29, charged Wilber Rafael Garces Perez with assaulting and resisting a federal officer. He is the Venezuelan man an ICE officer shot in the back during a traffic stop in Austin on Sunday, September 20. ICE stands for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal agency that arrests and deports people who are in the country illegally.
Story Snapshot
- Prosecutors filed one count of assaulting and resisting a federal officer, which carries up to 20 years in prison.
- The criminal complaint says he refused to get out of his car, drove off, and hit an officer with his side mirror.
- After a chase, the officer who fired says Garces Perez tried to hit him with the car.
- The officer who fired was not wearing a body camera; another officer’s camera recorded the stop.
What Prosecutors Allege Happened During the Austin Stop
The criminal complaint, the written charge that starts a federal case, lays out why the officer fired. It says officers stopped Garces Perez after they saw him leave a restaurant and identified him as a man with a final removal order, meaning a judge had already ordered him to leave the country. He handed over his driver’s license but ignored orders to step out. The complaint says he then “abruptly closed his window and drove off,” and his driver’s side mirror struck one officer in the torso. After a chase, one officer says Garces Perez tried to hit him with the car, and that officer shot him in the back.
The officer who fired was not wearing a body camera. A second officer was, and prosecutors say that footage shows Garces Perez closing his window and driving away after officers gave him directions in Spanish. The two sides give different accounts of when the officers’ emergency lights came on and whether an officer’s vehicle struck his car. He made his first appearance before a federal magistrate judge, a judge who handles the early steps of a case, and a detention hearing is set for Friday, October 2.
How Supporters Describe the Driver and the Shooting
Before the charge, Democrats and advocates rallied to him. Texas Democratic Rep. Greg Casar said, “This person needs a doctor, not a deportation or a detention center.” The League of United Latin American Citizens, a Latino civil rights group, and his lawyers called him a victim and the most important witness to the shooting. They say he was delivering food when he was stopped, and they urged the government not to deport him while the shooting is reviewed.
He left the hospital with the bullet still in his back and is being held at an immigration detention center in Pearsall, Texas. A judge temporarily halted his deportation the week before he was charged. His backers say ICE has not given him proper medical care. The government’s complaint tells a different story: that he used his car against the officers who tried to arrest him, and that this is why one of them opened fire.
Why This Case Taps Shared Concerns About Power and Accountability
Many Americans across party lines want the full facts fast after a shooting by an officer. This case shows why cameras matter. Only one of the two officers wore a body camera, and it was not the officer who fired. Body cameras can preserve key evidence and protect honest officers from false claims. They only help when every officer at the scene wears one and turns it on.
People frustrated with crime and border chaos want firm enforcement. People worried about civil rights want strict limits on force during stops. Both groups want the truth faster than the system usually delivers. The fix is simple to state and hard to do: put cameras on every officer and release video quickly. That would cut rumors, check abuse, and back honest officers doing a dangerous job.
What Comes Next in Court and Policy
The case now moves through the usual steps: the detention hearing on Friday, October 2, the sharing of evidence between both sides, and, if there is no plea, a trial. The defense can ask for the full video and records. If the footage matches the complaint, the prosecution’s case gets stronger. If it shows something different, the court will weigh it. Either way, the record, not the spin, decides guilt or innocence under the law.
Beyond this case, the country needs clear rules for vehicle stops by federal immigration officers. Consistent policies, fast release of evidence, and firm bans on excessive force build trust. So does real support for officers injured in the line of duty. When the system shows it can police itself, fewer people will feel the game is rigged.
Sources:
pjmedia.com, justice.gov, fox7austin.com, reuters.com, kxan.com
