Latest / Randy Unscripted / The Minnesota ICE Shooting: What the Law and the Video Show

Transcript

The Minnesota ICE Shooting: What the Law and the Video Show · Randy Unscripted

• 0:02
  Randy Black: Randy Black.
• 0:03
  Randy Black. Randy Black. Randy Black. Randy Black. Randy Black.
• 0:08
  Black. He's a troublemaker. Welcome back to Randy Unscripted. I'm Randy Black, and this is the podcast where I just share
• 0:14
  whatever happens
• 0:15
  to come across my mind.
• 0:18
  And on today's episode, I wanna address
• 0:21
  the fatal shooting of a woman in Minnesota by a federal
• 0:25
  immigration
• 0:25
  and customs enforcement officer, an ICE officer. It's a case that
• 0:30
  has generated
• 0:32
  national outrage,
• 0:33
  protests,
• 0:34
  and and no shortage
• 0:36
  of misleading commentary.
• 0:39
  What I wanna do today is simple.
• 0:42
  Let's strip away the noise.
• 0:44
  Let's strip away the politics,
• 0:47
  and let's walk through what Minnesota law actually says
• 0:51
  and what the public available video evidence actually shows.
• 0:56
  Because when you do that honestly,
• 0:59
  the conclusion here becomes
• 1:02
  extremely clear.
• 1:05
  So during a a federal
• 1:08
  enforcement operation in Minneapolis,
• 1:10
  an ICE officer
• 1:12
  shot
• 1:13
  and killed a woman who was inside of a vehicle.
• 1:17
  Immediately,
• 1:18
  the narratives took off. Headlines focused on the words unarmed and on federal agent
• 1:24
  while
• 1:25
  largely
• 1:28
  ignoring the most legally relevant detail in the case,
• 1:31
  the vehicle itself.
• 1:34
  Federal authorities stated from the beginning
• 1:37
  that the officer fired because the driver used or
• 1:40
  in some play some cases, you'd say attempted to use
• 1:44
  her vehicle in a way
• 1:46
  that posed an immediate threat
• 1:48
  to the officer's life.
• 1:51
  That claim is ultimately supported
• 1:54
  by video evidence, and we'll talk about that in a little bit.
• 1:59
  Minnesota state statute six zero nine dot zero six six
• 2:04
  governs
• 2:05
  when a peace officer is justified in using deadly force.
• 2:09
  The
• 2:10
  statute allows deadly force
• 2:12
  when it is necessary to protect the officer or another person from apparent death or great bodily harm.
• 2:21
  Notice what the law focuses on here.
• 2:24
  Not the type of weapon,
• 2:26
  not the intent of the that was claimed afterward,
• 2:30
  but the reasonable perception of an imminent
• 2:33
  imminent
• 2:35
  lethal
• 2:35
  threat
• 2:36
  in the moment it occurs.
• 2:39
  The statute
• 2:41
  explicitly recognizes that shooting at or toward a vehicle
• 2:45
  constitutes deadly force,
• 2:47
  which tells us that Minnesota law
• 2:50
  contemplates vehicles as potentially lethal
• 2:54
  instruments
• 2:55
  depending on how they are used.
• 2:57
  That's a that's a very important key.
• 3:01
  Now let's talk about the videos themselves that have come out.
• 3:05
  Not interpretations,
• 3:06
  not freeze frames, not ideological
• 3:08
  commentary,
• 3:09
  but what is plainly visible when you watch them.
• 3:13
  First,
• 3:15
  the vehicle is moving.
• 3:18
  The video clearly shows
• 3:21
  the vehicle in motion. This is not a parked or a stationary car.
• 3:26
  Second,
• 3:27
  there are officers in close proximity.
• 3:31
  The officers are within just a few feet of the vehicle, including one who's positioned directly
• 3:36
  in front of it.
• 3:38
  Third,
• 3:43
  there is absolutely
• 3:44
  no meaningful opportunity for retreat.
• 3:47
  The officer is in a confined residential street. When the vehicle begins to move, there is no clear or safe path to step aside.
• 3:57
  And fourth,
• 3:58
  the escalation
• 3:59
  is rapid.
• 4:01
  From the moment the vehicle moves to the moment shots are fired is a matter of seconds.
• 4:08
  In some place, if you sometimes you can analyze it and say, it might even be less than a second, but it is extremely quick.
• 4:15
  This is
• 4:17
  a textbook
• 4:18
  split second decision scenario.
• 4:22
  These are not interpretations.
• 4:25
  These are absolutely 100%
• 4:27
  observable facts.
• 4:29
  The vehicle's moving, officers are in close proximity,
• 4:32
  there is no meaningful opportunity for retreat, and the escalation is rapid.
• 4:37
  Those four things taken together
• 4:39
  show
• 4:40
  the circumstances a reasonable officer faced in that moment.
• 4:48
  Minnesota state statute six zero nine dot zero two
• 4:51
  defines a dangerous weapon as
• 4:54
  any device
• 4:56
  or instrumentality
• 4:58
  that in the manner it is used or intended to be used
• 5:02
  is calculated
• 5:03
  or likely to produce death
• 5:05
  or bodily harm.
• 5:08
  That definition
• 5:10
  is critical.
• 5:12
  A vehicle by itself is not
• 5:15
  automatically a weapon. I agree with that statement 100%.
• 5:20
  But a vehicle used in a manner that could kill or seriously injure someone
• 5:26
  qualifies
• 5:28
  as a dangerous weapon under Minnesota law,
• 5:32
  statute six zero nine dot zero two.
• 5:35
  The law focuses on how the object is being used,
• 5:40
  not what the object is.
• 5:43
  This definition
• 5:45
  directly feeds
• 5:46
  into Minnesota statute six zero nine dot zero six six that we talked about earlier, which governs
• 5:52
  when an officer may lawfully use deadly force.
• 5:56
  Under six zero nine dot zero six six,
• 5:58
  deadly force is justified when necessary to protect the officer or another person from an apparent death or great bodily harm.
• 6:08
  Let's apply this to the video.
• 6:11
  A moving vehicle,
• 6:12
  officers in close proximity,
• 6:15
  no meaningful retreat,
• 6:17
  and a rapid escalation.
• 6:20
  That combination
• 6:22
  meets the statutory definition
• 6:24
  of a dangerous weapon in use
• 6:27
  and creates a situation where a reasonable officer could perceive
• 6:31
  imminent threat.
• 6:33
  That
• 6:34
  is the law.
• 6:38
  Minnesota state law evaluates use of force cases
• 6:42
  based on what a reasonable officer in the same position,
• 6:45
  knowing what the officer knew at that moment would perceive,
• 6:48
  not hindsight,
• 6:50
  not editorial analysis,
• 6:51
  and not emotional reaction.
• 6:54
  Jurors would be instructed to ask one question.
• 6:59
  Was
• 7:00
  the officer's perception objectively reasonable
• 7:04
  at the moment
• 7:05
  force
• 7:06
  was used?
• 7:08
  They're not asked whether a different officer might have handled the encounter differently or whether slow motion replay makes the situation look less dangerous.
• 7:17
  Here,
• 7:18
  the officer saw a moving vehicle,
• 7:20
  was in close proximity,
• 7:22
  had no viable retreat,
• 7:24
  and faced a rapid ex escalation.
• 7:27
  Under Minnesota law,
• 7:29
  that is exactly
• 7:32
  the type of type of circumstance jurors are instructed to consider
• 7:36
  when evaluating deadly force.
• 7:39
  The law does not require certainty.
• 7:42
  It requires reasonableness.
• 7:45
  And based on the video that's been out there, all the videos,
• 7:49
  that standard is met.
• 7:52
  Now some media outlets have tried to frame this as
• 7:57
  ambiguous or unsettled, and that framing doesn't come from the video.
• 8:02
  It comes from ideology.
• 8:05
  The video does not show a stationary vehicle.
• 8:09
  It does not show officers
• 8:11
  safely distanced from that vehicle.
• 8:14
  It does not show a prolonged standoff with time to disengage.
• 8:20
  What it shows is a rapidly evolving close quarters encounter involving a moving vehicle,
• 8:27
  and Minnesota state law explicitly recognizes
• 8:30
  vehicles as potentially deadly when used in this manner.
• 8:35
  The perception of of imminent threat is the legal standard,
• 8:39
  and that is what the video demonstrates.
• 8:44
  Under Minnesota statute six zero nine dot o two, a vehicle being used in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily harm is a dangerous weapon.
• 8:54
  When a reasonable officer perceives such a vehicle posing imminent for imminent death or great bodily harm, statute six zero nine dot o six six authorizes deadly force.
• 9:07
  Again,
• 9:08
  the video shows a moving vehicle,
• 9:11
  officers in close proximity,
• 9:13
  no safe path to retreat, and rapid escalation consent with perceived
• 9:18
  lethal threat.
• 9:21
  Under Minnesota law,
• 9:23
  that combination
• 9:25
  meets the legal threshold.
• 9:29
  Tragic
• 9:30
  as this event is,
• 9:32
  it does not make it unlawful.
• 9:36
  That is the legal framework.
• 9:38
  That is the reality
• 9:40
  that the videos demonstrate,
• 9:43
  and that is what
• 9:45
  Minnesota state law says
• 9:48
  on the matter.
• 9:51
  Thank you for listening, and thank you for taking the time to
• 9:54
  separate law from politics and and fact from narrative by listening to this today.
• 10:00
  I'm Randy Black, and this has been
• 10:03
  Randy Unscripted.