On the menu today: Everything you need to know about an ICE agent fatally shooting a woman driving an SUV in Minneapolis yesterday — from federal government policy on the use of deadly force, to the relevant laws, to the instant incendiary remarks from political officials, to the increasing sense that the city and state of Minnesota now represent the very worst of hard-left governance. Read on.
The Facts About the Minnesota ICE Shooting
From the website of the U.S. Department of Justice:
It is the policy of the Department of Justice to value and preserve human life. Officers may use only the force that is objectively reasonable to effectively gain control of an incident, while protecting the safety of the officer and others, in keeping with the standards set forth in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). Officers may use force only when no reasonably effective, safe, and feasible alternative appears to exist and may use only the level of force that a reasonable officer on the scene would use under the same or similar circumstances.
As the Supreme Court stated in Graham: The decision to use force “requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others, and whether [the suspect] is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Id at 396. “The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact 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.” Id at 396-97. In addition, “[t]he ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Id at 397. “[T]he question is whether the officers’ actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them.”
Deadly force may not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect.
The U.S. Department of Justice has guidelines for police forces on how they ought to investigate officer-involved shootings. Those guidelines note, “Investigations of officer-involved shootings are critically important; the results affect not only the involved officers, but also the department and the community. The findings of the investigation inform any criminal charges or administrative discipline that may ensue, as well as liability that may attach to the officers, the department, or the parent jurisdiction.”
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is part of the Department of Homeland Security, but their policies on the use of force are indistinguishable: “DHS [law enforcement officers] are permitted to use force that is reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. This standard does not require LEOs to meet force with equal or lesser force. DHS LEOs do not have a duty to retreat to avoid the reasonable use of force, nor are they required to wait for an attack before using reasonable force to stop a threat.”
If ICE has begun an investigation into the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good behind the wheel of her SUV, it has barely begun.
We don’t know the name of the ICE agent involved. We don’t know how long he has been on the job, beyond Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem saying he is an “experienced officer.” We don’t know how and when he was trained, or whether he’s been involved in other shootings or use of lethal force, or whether he’s ever been disciplined or reprimanded for his actions in the field. We don’t know whether this was just another day on the job, or whether the officer was dealing with some stressful situation professionally or personally that may have influenced his mindset at the time of the shooting.
Our Andy McCarthy, who spent two decades as a federal prosecutor, explains that the law that applies here is clear:
Undoubtedly, if it is reasonable to construe the woman’s action as a deliberate attempt to mow down an ICE agent with a speeding vehicle, the use of force was justified. But even if the woman was mainly trying to get away (which is what it looks like to me), she was engaged in an actionable assault on a federal officer, a felony under Section 111 of the federal penal code.
One of my first cases as a young prosecutor was an assault on a federal officer — a probation officer. The defendant was convicted even though he never actually struck the officer; he just clenched his fist and assumed an offensive stance, suggesting an imminent swing.
That was sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt because the statute targets anyone who “forcibly assaults, resists, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with” a federal officer. To constitute assault, there need not be battery; and here, the statutory language reaches conduct less serious than assault. If the agent is put in reasonable fear of imminent harm, that’s enough. . . .
It is settled Fourth Amendment law that a police officer may use deadly force against a fleeing suspect if he has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. (See, e.g., Tennessee v. Gardner (1985).) Here, I believe the driver was in the act of committing a dangerous assault when the agent opened fire. And the driver’s reckless operation of the vehicle, coupled with the fact that she was heedless of harming armed law enforcement agents as they were carrying out their official duties, underscores that it was reasonable to believe she posed a serious threat to the agents and others.
The woman behind the wheel is dead and cannot testify to her intent or state of mind. Perhaps she did panic. If she had no hostile intent, that makes the outcome even more tragic. But that does not make the shooting unjustified or illegal.
The term “murder” is getting thrown around by figures like New York City Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Under the law, murder has a particular definition: “the unlawful killing of a human being with malice.” At this point, the ICE agent’s actions appear lawful and with no discernible malice, but again, the review has only begun.
The situation after a law enforcement officer uses lethal force is tense enough already; it doesn’t need political leaders jumping in to make sweeping premature judgments, using the most heated rhetoric possible. And yet, that’s just what the country got.
Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, Wednesday:
“This domestic act of terrorism to use your vehicle to try to kill law enforcement officers is going to stop, and I’m asking the DOJ to prosecute it as domestic terrorism — because it’s clear that it’s being coordinated. People are being trained and told how to use their vehicles to impede law enforcement operations and then to run over anybody who gets in their way.”
I’m not sure what Noem is talking about when she says “prosecute it as domestic terrorism,” because you cannot bring criminal charges against a corpse.
The Democratic mayor of Minneapolis, Jacob Frey, accused ICE of “sowing chaos on our streets and, in this case, quite literally killing people. So, they are already trying to spin this as an action of self-defense. Having seen the video of myself, I want to tell everybody directly that is bull****. This was an agent recklessly using power that resulted in somebody dying, getting killed.”
Frey continued, “There’s little I can say again that will make this situation better, but I do have a message for our community, our city, and I have a message for ICE. To ICE, get the f*** out of Minneapolis. We do not want you here. Your stated reason for being in this city is to create some kind of safety, and you are doing exactly the opposite. People are being hurt. Families are being ripped apart.”
Despite the rhetoric about “sanctuary cities,” mayors do not get to pick and choose which federal laws get enforced within their jurisdictions, nor do they get to decide how those laws will be enforced. The fact that Frey doesn’t want ICE agents in his city doesn’t matter.
In a refreshing change of pace, Trump border czar Tom Homan told CBS Evening News anchor Tony Dokoupil that it was too early for him to make any judgments or definitive statements about the officer’s actions.
“I’m not going to make a judgment call on one video when there’s a hundred videos out there,” Homan said. “I’m not — I wasn’t on the scene. I’m not an officer that may have body cam video. I would be unprofessional to comment on what I think happened in that situation.”
You may have noticed that the political establishment of the state of Minnesota is being shaken to its core by the fact that the state and federal treasuries have been fleeced by con artists for years, with the state government either shamefully oblivious or criminally complicit in one large-scale fraud scandal after another. It’s bad enough for Governor Tim Walz to unexpectedly drop his bid for a third term.
Walz, obviously, would love to talk about anything but the fraud scandals.
In yesterday’s press conference, Walz said, “The state bureau of criminal apprehension are [sic] working on the investigation.”
This morning several progressive publications — Vox, American Prospect — are calling for the state of Minnesota to prosecute this ICE agent. This would require the state to prove that the ICE agent was not “acting reasonably and within the bounds of his federal duties.” That seems like a tall order, considering precedent.
Nonetheless, state AG Keith Ellison — who accepted $10,000 in donations from figures convicted of fraud and who dismissed the fraud scandal controversy as “political theater” — said yesterday, “Renee Good deserves justice, and my office will not look away. As Attorney General, I will do everything in my power to pursue the truth and ensure accountability and transparency.”
Yesterday, Walz said, “I’ve issued a warning order to prepare the Minnesota National Guard. We have soldiers in training and prepared to be deployed if necessary. I remind you, a warning order is a heads up for folks. And these National Guard troops are our National Guard troops.”
Apparently, Walz meant that the National Guard could be deployed in the case of riots, not as an obstacle to future enforcement of immigration laws. He later emphasized, “We’ve never been at war with our federal government.”
Late last night, our Jeff Blehar attempted to express what I suspect is an increasingly widespread exasperation and exhaustion with the thoroughly dysfunctional political culture that has taken root in Minnesota, and its repercussions for the rest of the country.
Minnesota is the place where state officials come down hard on whistleblowers warning about fraud, and ignore those who are committing the fraud. Where the governor can’t even manage the budget for his own office, never mind the entire state government. Where people react to the death of George Floyd not just with riots, but with Molotov cocktails and burning down a police station. Where the local representative characterizes the 9/11 attacks as “some people did something.” Where some angry trans activist chooses to shoot up the local Catholic school during Mass. Where the local Hampton Inn hotel cancels reservations for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Department of Homeland Security agents due to “information about immigration work connected to your name.” Where attempting to clear out a drug-ridden homeless encampment in a parking lot results in seven people getting shot. Where the Powerline guys expose scandal after scandal and no one seems to care. Where not even James Lileks, who loves his neighborhood and the city of Minneapolis and the area’s local history, can stand it anymore and moves out.
There are times when the conservative argument against progressive leaders at the local and state level can get hyperbolic, overheated, and doomsaying. But Minnesota in general, and Minneapolis in particular, is a spectacularly vivid example of what happens when the progressive philosophies of government run amok. Crime doesn’t get prosecuted; certain forms of crime by the preferred groups is tolerated or even encouraged. Homelessness and drug abuse proliferate, and those with those with serious mental health issues wander the streets; downtowns of cities become increasingly unpleasant places to live and visit. Businesses that can afford to relocate choose to move their operations elsewhere. It’s a vicious cycle of decline that is extremely difficult to reverse.
You would think the rest of the country would want to take heed of the lessons up there.
ADDENDUM: In case you missed it yesterday, a bit of non-sarcastic praise for director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.