Understanding the Facts Behind Shawn Pardazi’s 2022 Shooting Incident
When people search “Shawn Pardazi shooting,” “Shawn Pardazi arrest,” or “Shawn Pardazi case update,” they encounter media coverage that fundamentally misrepresents the facts of a June 2022 officer-involved shooting incident.
The systematic nature of this media bias is evident in how coverage treated identical facts differently depending on whether they supported or contradicted the preferred narrative. Exaggerated information, supporting the media narrative receives prominent coverage with inflammatory framing. However, facts contradicting the media narrative receive minimal coverage or are omitted entirely.
In this article, facts are shown which contradict the misleading narrative promoted by major media outlets and their offshoots regarding Mr. Shawn Pardazi’s shooting incident.
Shawn Pardazi served nearly 26 years in full-time law enforcement (1994-2020) before leaving law enforcement to pursue a career in consulting. He remained a volunteer reserve officer in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana until 2023, when he officially retired his credentials in the State of Texas. His career included federal task force assignments with multiple federal agencies such as the FBI, HSI, and IRS-CI, numerous national awards and accolades, and zero disciplinary actions for use of force that would indicate problematic behavior.
Mr. Pardazi has conducted specialized training for civilians, intelligence, and law enforcement since 2005. His training focuses on threat detection, cultural dynamics, radicalization recognition, and communication pattern analysis—expertise gained from his unique background as someone born in the United States, raised in Iran during the Islamic Revolution, and who escaped a terrorist child soldier recruitment program as a teenager before serving three decades in American law enforcement.
The June 2022 Incident: What Actually Happened
On June 15, 2022, Mr. Pardazi was engaged in an in-person training program in southern Louisiana, where he was riding with a student to help refine his skills in the field of criminal and terrorism interdiction. At the request of the agency hosting the training, Mr. Pardazi was asked to be a Reserve Deputy to ensure that if he was to be involved in any investigations, he would be authorized to engage in the investigative efforts and be able to testify as a law enforcement witness. Since 2005, Mr. Pardazi has conducted this type of training all over the United States and Canada as a part of his training mentorship for agents tasked with criminal and terrorism interdiction efforts.
Mr. Pardazi was riding as a passenger with a local Deputy Sheriff, in the capacity of a Volunteer Reserve Deputy, when they initiated a traffic stop on a grey SUV traveling on Interstate 10 in southern Louisiana. The vehicle was being stopped for committing multiple traffic violations.
The SUV finally stopped a mile after being signaled to stop with lights and siren. The vehicle remained in drive with brake lights illuminated. Mr. Pardazi remained seated in the patrol car, as he routinely did when mentoring students, to be able to monitor the interaction from a distance away and provide constructive criticism for each encounter later. As the lead Deputy exited and gave loud verbal commands for the driver to put the car in park, the SUV lurched forward twice, failing to comply, acting very suspicious.
As the lead Deputy was giving commands and approaching the driver’s side, while still seated in the passenger seat of the patrol car, Mr. Pardazi, through the back window of the SUV, observed a handgun in the driver’s right hand pointing toward the approaching lead Deputy. Acting to protect the lead Deputy’s life, Mr. Pardazi was forced to exit the patrol car and act by engaging the driver to prevent an attack on the lead Deputy as he was nearing the SUV.
As Mr. Pardazi exited the patrol car, clearing the passenger door to establish a clear view of the SUV, while simultaneously drawing his sidearm to engage the threat, Mr. Pardazi discharged his weapon five times over approximately 2.16 seconds as the vehicle fled. Standing 5’4” tall and positioned on the downward slope of the shoulder, Mr. Pardazi’s view of the lead Deputy’s exact location was obstructed by the patrol vehicle. He ceased firing when he confirmed the lead Deputy had safely returned to the patrol car. From the time the lead deputy exited the patrol car to the final shot fired by Mr. Pardazi was only seven seconds total—including Mr. Pardazi observing the weapon, unbuckling his seatbelt, opening the door, exiting the patrol car, drawing his weapon, and firing five shots.
Once both had re-entered the patrol vehicle, they pursued the fleeing SUV, which had now committed multiple felonies including aggravated assault on peace officers. The vehicle fled for several miles at speeds exceeding 130 mph, entering the next parish where it exited the interstate and nearly forced a civilian vehicle off the road, showing no regard to the safety of innocent motorists. The SUV subsequently lost control and crashed into a sugar cane field.
The driver exited the vehicle before it stopped completely and fled into the sugar cane field, holding the weapon in his hand, as he disappeared into the field. The focus of the two now became primarily on the additional two passengers who had appeared that were hiding in the vehicle and initially not seen. The two passengers were secured at the location, while the driver was at large and not able to be identified nor captured.
On-scene investigation revealed that the SUV had been stolen a few days prior and had been recently painted grey to disguise its original black color. In addition, drugs were recovered from the vehicle.
Immediate Official Response and Investigation
Within hours of the incident, multiple independent investigations commenced. The agency’s Internal Affairs Division conducted a comprehensive administrative review. Simultaneously, the Criminal Investigation Division conducted a separate investigation to determine whether any violations of law occurred. Both investigations were conducted, confirming that no occupants were struck by gunfire.
Internal Affairs Findings
The Internal Affairs investigation analyzed the actions against agency policies and federal constitutional standards established by Graham v. Connor (490 U.S. 386, 1989) and Tennessee v. Garner (471 U.S. 1, 1985).
The investigation’s findings were unequivocal: A thorough investigation concluded that the officer’s use of deadly force during the lawful traffic stop complied with department policy. Based upon a review of the agency’s reports, typed statements, videotaped interviews, and dash cam video, both law enforcement officers did not violate policies.
The report specifically noted that given the nature of the investigation conducted by the agency, and the reasonable perceptions of the deputies once they exited the police unit, and further supported by the behavioral manifestations exhibited by the driver of the SUV, it was determined that the level of force applied by Mr. Pardazi was proportionate to the level of resistance offered by the driver of the SUV.
The analysis applied the Graham v. Connor standard requiring evaluation from “the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” The report acknowledged that “police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”
The investigation concluded that during this rapidly unfolding incident on a busy interstate at dusk, deputies were required to make immediate decisions about a suspect who deliberately placed them in fear of being shot, then fled at extreme speeds while endangering civilian motorists. Fresh pursuit was required to ensue since multiple felonies had now been committed.
Criminal Investigation Findings
Both investigations were completed in August 2022. The Criminal Investigation Division determined that the investigation did not produce any evidence indicating violation of criminal law on the part of any of the officers involved.
The investigation confirmed that the driver pointed a weapon at law enforcement, fled the traffic stop, engaged in a high-speed pursuit endangering civilian lives, crashed the stolen vehicle, and fled on foot while armed. These actions constituted multiple felonies including aggravated assault on a peace officer, illegal possession of a stolen vehicle, flight from an officer, and weapons violations.
Independent Expert Analysis
Beyond internal investigations, an independent expert review was conducted by a certified Use of Force expert certified by the Force Science Institute. The expert holds extensive credentials including over 20 years in federal and local law enforcement, advanced certifications in force science and human performance, and previous qualification as an expert witness in multiple use of force cases.
The expert’s report provided comprehensive analysis across three domains: use of force law, general police practices, and human performance factors.
Legal Analysis
The expert report applied Tennessee v. Garner, which permits deadly force to apprehend a fleeing felon when “the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others” and deadly force is “necessary to prevent escape.” The report concluded that Mr. Pardazi had probable cause to believe that the driver of the SUV posed an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to the officers present, and that the fleeing driver posed an imminent threat to the public.
The analysis noted that the driver had threatened the approaching officer with a deadly weapon, was still armed with that weapon, was fleeing with no objective evidence of peacefully surrendering, and if allowed to escape would pose a danger to the community. Under these circumstances, use of deadly force was constitutionally justified both to stop the immediate threat and to prevent escape of a dangerous armed felon.
Human Performance Analysis
The expert report extensively analyzed Mr. Pardazi’s perceptual and cognitive state during the shooting. Under extreme stress, the human body enters a physiological arousal state that significantly impacts motor performance, perception, decision-making, and memory. These effects are well-documented in peer-reviewed scientific literature and are taught in advanced law enforcement training.
Mr. Pardazi reported experiencing tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, altered time perception, automatic motor response, and memory fragmentation—all consistent with officer responses to life-threatening situations documented in scientific research.
The expert explained: “Pardazi’s motor performance, perception, and decision-making was impaired by the stress of the life-threatening event. It is further my opinion that Pardazi’s automatic response of firing his weapon five times in approximately 2.16 seconds is consistent with and would be expected from even well-trained and experienced police officers when they face what they perceive to be a credible threat to their life.”
The expert analysis specifically addressed the timing and cadence of shots. Frame-by-frame analysis of video footage revealed all five shots were fired in 2.16 seconds as the vehicle accelerated away from the traffic stop.
The report concluded: “Mr. Pardazi stopped firing when he was able to observe that the other officer was safe and re-entering the unit. Frame-by-frame analysis of the shooting with the benefit of hindsight might allow for the argument that the other officer was safe before the fourth or fifth shots were fired. However, this is not the standard of review set forth in Graham. The government is not afforded the luxury of 20/20 hindsight to the detriment of Mr. Pardazi.”
Expert Conclusion
The expert opinion stated: “Mr. Pardazi’s use of deadly force was objectively reasonable, consistent with his training and experience, legally justified, and within the scope of acceptable police practices.” The report emphasized that Mr. Pardazi‘s actions were “a reasonable response to a perceived deadly threat.”
The Facebook Livestream Misrepresentation
Media coverage prominently featured allegations that Mr. Pardazi “deleted” a Facebook livestream of the incident, suggesting destruction of evidence and consciousness of guilt. This characterization fundamentally misrepresents both the technology involved and the facts established by investigation.
Mr. Pardazi routinely live-streamed his field training sessions to his own private Facebook group consisting exclusively of verified law enforcement officers. These livestreams demonstrated practical application of interdiction techniques and interaction tactics. This was standard practice for his training methodology and was well-known to his students and colleagues around North America, who made up around 17,000 members.
Facebook group mobile livestreams function differently than standard video posts. When conducting a livestream, the broadcaster has two options upon ending the stream: (1) save the video as a permanent post in the group, or (2) simply end the stream without saving. Choosing not to save a livestream is not “deletion”—it is the default option if the broadcaster does not affirmatively choose to save the content in the group or on a page.
When original investigators subpoenaed Facebook for any deleted videos from Mr. Pardazi’s account, Facebook confirmed that no videos had been saved and subsequently deleted manually. The livestream simply ended and was not archived—a routine technical outcome consistent with how millions of users end livestreams daily.
The media transformed this mundane technical detail into a sinister narrative of evidence destruction, despite Facebook’s records proving no deletion occurred. This misrepresentation occurred in the broader context of a nationwide media environment actively seeking to demonize law enforcement actions through selective presentation of facts and promotion of disinformation designed to shift public perception against police officers.
The Street Cop Conference Fabrication
Media coverage also falsely claimed that Mr. Pardazi “gloated about the shooting” at a 2021 Street Cop Training conference, attempting to establish a pattern of reckless behavior or poor judgment. This claim contains multiple factual errors that reveal the careless nature of the reporting.
First, the June 2022 shooting could not have been discussed at a 2021 conference—basic chronology makes this impossible. The shooting Mr. Pardazi referenced during his 2021 presentation involved a completely separate incident from the late 2010s when he was assigned to an FBI task force in Texas. Media outlets deliberately conflated two unrelated incidents to support a predetermined narrative.
Second, media coverage described Mr. Pardazi as a “Street Cop Training instructor” and reported that he “resigned” from that position following the 2022 incident. This is false. Mr. Pardazi was never an instructor, contractor, or employee of Street Cop Training. He was a guest speaker at their annual conference—one of many invited presenters that year alongside other public figures and subject matter experts. His one-hour presentation focused on smuggling tradecraft, showcasing his specialized expertise to law enforcement audiences in that region of the country.
The distinction between guest speaker and instructor is significant. Guest speakers are invited to present on specific topics at conferences. Instructors are employed or contracted to deliver ongoing training curriculum. Characterizing a single guest speaking engagement as an instructor position, then claiming he “resigned” from a position he never held, demonstrates willful misrepresentation designed to suggest he was fired for misconduct.
This fabrication served the media narrative by creating the false impression that Mr. Pardazi had discussed the 2022 shooting inappropriately at a public venue, then lost professional standing as a result. In reality, he discussed an entirely different incident from years earlier during a legitimate conference presentation before the 2022 incident ever occurred, and he had no employment relationship with the conference organizer to resign from.
2023 Charges: Reinvestigation Without New Facts
In 2022, following completion of both Internal Affairs and Criminal Investigation Division reviews, no criminal charges were filed. Both investigations cleared Mr. Pardazi of any wrongdoing, policy violations, or criminal conduct. The case was closed.
In 2023, after an internal leak to a local journalist by a new command staff member, new temporary investigators were hired for this case only to reinvestigate the identical incident. Despite no changes to the physical evidence and no alteration of the documented sequence of events, criminal charges were filed. The case was framed differently, but the underlying facts remained exactly as they had been documented in June 2022.
The 2023 charges were not based on discovery of misconduct previously unknown to investigators. They were not based on new evidence contradicting the original findings. They were not based on witnesses coming forward with different accounts. The reinvestigation simply reinterpreted facts that had already been thoroughly examined and found not to constitute criminal conduct.
After going through a lengthy legal process, the two felony charges were downgraded to a single misdemeanor charge in September 2024. Not having the financial capabilities to continue the legal battle, Pardazi paid a fine to resolve the case at the lowest cost possible. Finally, after doing so, the misdemeanor charge itself was dismissed in March 2025.
Pattern Analysis: Agenda-Driven Charges
The timeline reveals a pattern inconsistent with objective pursuit of justice:
2022 Investigation and Findings:
• June 15: Incident occurs
• June 15-16: Immediate evidence collection and witness interviews
• June-August: Comprehensive Internal Affairs and Criminal Investigation Division reviews
• August 2022: Both investigations determine no policy violations or criminal law violations occurred
• Case closed with no charges filed
2023 Reinvestigation (14 months later):
• New temporary investigators hired for this case only
• Facts unchanged from original incident
• Criminal charges filed anyway, nearly 14 months post-incident
2025 Resolution:
• Felony charges downgraded to misdemeanor (September 2024)
• Misdemeanor charge dismissed (March 2025)
• Complete vindication
Since no facts had changed between the 2022 and 2023 investigations, this pattern suggests the second investigation was driven by an alternate motive to make the actions appear criminal when those same actions were found fully justified in the first thorough investigation. Sources close to the second investigation have suggested that the reinvestigation was partially related to a local political race, as well as to comments by a new administrator who had joined the department in January 2023—some seven months after the incident—stating that since Mr. Pardazi was a “Goat Herder,” he did not need to “be a cop or train cops in this country.” This suggests that the administrator conspired with a close contact at the local media level to spawn negative media coverage and establish a perceived need to reinvestigate the incident, hiring two old colleagues to reinvestigate the incident again.
Media Amplification of False Narrative
Major media outlets and their offshoots seized upon the 2023 charges to construct a narrative of a “problematic officer” with a “troubled career,” all of which were generated at the local level and then gained national attention. This characterization contradicts the documented record.
Mr. Pardazi’s nearly three-decade-long law enforcement career (26 years full-time, 3 years reserve) included:
• Zero previous use of force investigations finding problematic behavior
• Zero previous disciplinary actions related to use of force
• Zero previous criminal charges or arrests
• Federal Task Force assignments (FBI, HSI, and IRS) requiring national security clearances as an Agent
• Multiple national awards and accolades
• Continuous exemplary service across multiple jurisdictions
A single incident in which an officer responds to a deadly threat, is immediately investigated by multiple investigators, is cleared by those investigations, is validated by independent expert analysis, and results in no charges being filed in 2022 does not constitute evidence of a “troubled career.” A decision by different investigators over a year later to reinterpret the same facts does not retroactively transform a pristine 29-year record into evidence of systemic problems nor changes the facts of the incident.
Media coverage focused almost exclusively on the 2023 charges while ignoring or minimizing:
• The 2022 investigations that cleared Mr. Pardazi
• The independent expert analysis validating the shooting as justified
• The fact that the suspect pointed a weapon at officers
• The fact that the vehicle was stolen
• The fact that drugs were found in the vehicle
• The fact that the suspect fled at speeds exceeding 130 mph, endangering civilian lives
• Mr. Pardazi’s 29-year exemplary record and service to the country for identifying and apprehending numerous transnational criminals and terrorists
This selective presentation created a fundamentally misleading impression designed to portray law enforcement in the worst possible light regardless of factual accuracy. And in the case of Mr. Pardazi’s incident, potentially driven by underlying bigotry initiating the process from within the law enforcement community.
The Broader Context: Systematic Demonization of Law Enforcement
The misrepresentation of Mr. Pardazi’s case did not occur in isolation in the broader realm. The incident took place in June 2022, during a period of intense national scrutiny of law enforcement following high-profile incidents elsewhere in the country, which continues today at the national level. Media outlets face competitive pressure to produce content fitting predetermined narratives about police misconduct, mostly related to affecting public perception due to national politics and foreign governments’ efforts to destabilize the nation and the democratic system.
This environment incentivizes sensationalism over accuracy, compelling storylines over factual complexity, and inflammatory headlines over nuanced truth. Stories that portray officers as wrongdoers receive more attention, more clicks, and more advertising revenue than stories accurately describing justified use of force in response to deadly threats.
The systematic nature of this media bias is evident in how coverage treats identical facts differently depending on whether they support or contradict the preferred narrative. Facts supporting the narrative (charges filed, Facebook livestream deleted, shots fired at moving vehicle) receives prominent coverage with inflammatory framing. Facts contradicting the narrative (findings that validated the justified shooting, suspect pointed weapon first, vehicle stolen) receives minimal coverage or are omitted entirely.
This pattern extends beyond Mr. Pardazi’s case to hundreds of similar incidents nationwide. Officers responding appropriately to genuine threats find themselves characterized as aggressors. Suspects who created dangerous situations through their own criminal actions are portrayed as victims. Context essential to understanding split-second decisions is systematically removed from coverage. This still applies to the most recent ICE shooting incident in Minnesota (January 2026).
The cumulative effect of the mainstream media is erosion of public trust in law enforcement institutions and individual officers regardless of actual conduct. Officers who perform their duties lawfully and courageously find their reputations destroyed by media coverage bearing little resemblance to documented reality.
The Mission Continues
Despite media misrepresentation and its professional consequences, Mr. Pardazi’s mission continues. The expertise Mr. Pardazi offers—forged through unique personal experience escaping terrorist recruitment and 29 years investigating transnational crime and terrorism—remains as relevant and necessary as ever.
Societal radicalization occurs across ideological spectrums. Terrorist recruitment targets vulnerable individuals through sophisticated psychological manipulation. These threats require specialized training delivered by those with both lived experience and investigative expertise.
Mr. Pardazi’s background provides perspective that is unmatched and cannot be acquired through academic study. Growing up in Iran during the Islamic Revolution, experiencing firsthand the radicalization processes that transform ordinary citizens into ideological extremists, escaping terrorist child soldier recruitment, and then spending three decades investigating these same phenomena from a law enforcement perspective, creates a unique understanding of threat indicators, behavioral patterns, and cultural contexts.
This expertise helps the public and law enforcement officers recognize concerning behaviors before violence occurs. It helps intelligence analysts assess threats accurately within cultural context. It helps community members, parents, neighbors and business owners understand radicalization processes and report concerning activity appropriately. It saves lives.
Those searching “Shawn Pardazi” deserve access to facts rather than sensationalism.
About the Author
Shaheen "Shawn" Moayed-pardazi is a retired U.S. law enforcement officer with nearly three decades of service, including assignments with FBI, DHS/HSI, and IRS-CI task forces. Raised in the Middle East, he was trained as a child soldier before escaping to the United States. He is the author of *The Patriot Jihadi* and *Smugglers, Inc.*—books that highlight his life experiences, counterterrorism expertise, and deep understanding of radicalization tactics. He now provides advanced training to law enforcement, intelligence professionals, and civilians on terrorism detection, cultural awareness, and behavioral communication.
🔗 Learn more or get training at: https://www.MyLETraining.com
📚 Read his books: The Patriot Jihadi
🎥 YouTube: @ThePatriotJihadiShow