Transcription
Hello again everyone. Welcome to Washington Gun Law TV. I am Washington Gun Law President William Kirk. Thanks for joining us.
We are going to have to talk about the terrible events that took place a couple days ago in Minnesota involving an ICE officer because it appears that everybody on the Exosphere and other social media platforms are suddenly just like my father-in-law and brother-in-law. What do I mean by that? Well, they are all self-defense legal experts now. Because in my family, they used to be infectious disease experts and then they became election integrity experts and then they became immigration enforcement experts and lately they've been experts in fraud investigation and now they want to tell me how the laws of self-defense work without of course actually reading the law. And so what I figured we'd do today is something that no one else is really willing to do which is take a look at what happened but then compare that to the actual law. So that's what we're going to do today. So today, let's spend a few minutes and let's talk about what does the law say about the ICE shooting in Minnesota.
Okay, America. Now, listen. If you're tuning in to this video to hear me say this is absolutely, positively a cold-blooded murder or this is absolutely positively legally justified, I'm not going there. Because as a trial attorney, we don't try to come to conclusions until we have all the evidence. and you nor I have all the evidence right now. We are going to take a look at two video clips to at least give us a thumbnail sketch of what may happen. But we are not truly going to get to a conclusion today, but we are going to ask all of you based upon what you know so far. What do you think?
Now, we all know the incident I'm talking about where a woman was shot and killed by an ICE agent in Minnesota. I am not going to try to glorify this thing and I'm not going to sit here and try to cough and surf on her. And for those of you who may think that she had it coming, that she did this to herself, that this was an F AFO moment, you may be entirely right. But let us not divorce ourselves from the fact that this is a human life, a terrible waste of a human life, and a mother of a young child. And so this is tragic, no matter how we cut it up. I know there's a lot to the backstory and what happened leading up to this incident, but I'm here to tell you that most of that, if not all of it, is not going to matter. Let's go back to the Kyle Writtenhouse case. Yeah, the prosecution made a big deal out of all the events that led up to the incident, but really that 15 seconds that actually constituted the incident, that's what the entire trial was about. And so, what led up to this will have little if any importance. As a matter of fact, the assessment of whether or not this was a lawful use of force is going to be based on really just a few seconds of time. And with that in mind, let's take a look at the first video clip that most of you have probably already seen. Now, I'm going to warn you that we'll probably stop it a little early simply because Google and YouTube have a tendency to completely crap themselves about here, but we will link up the videos below so that you can actually see them in their entirety. This is the first video, the one you've all seen.
NO. NO. SHAME. SHAME. Oh my god. What the What the You just What the did you do?
>> Okay. And we're going to break that down in just a moment here. But I think another video which many of you may not have seen cuz it hasn't been circulated as much, but it's a different angle. And I want you to pay careful attention to this. And I want you to take a look at the officer who discharged his firearm was actually in danger and was in this case struck by the perpetrator's vehicle. Take a look at this video.
Okay. So, when we go and we do a video breakdown of this right here, it's all going to be focused on was this officer, the one you can barely see here, or in this case, this officer right here, same guy, was he actually placed in imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury? In general, in general, there are four legal justifications for using lethal force. These are them right here. We're going to ignore three of them because we're going to just talk about this first one right here, which is that you yourself are in imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. If this officer was in fact in imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, he probably has legal justification for using lethal force. Now, I think we can all agree, we can probably all agree that getting run over by a car is certainly imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. So, if that was a possibility, if that actually was the reality of what could occurred, then there is a strong likelihood that the officer's actions here were lawfully justified. But for all of the people, the Jacob Freys of the world and everything like that that are just coming to their own legal conclusion, might I remind them to check out what Minnesota law says. For example, Minnesota statute 609.066, authorized use of deadly force by peace officers. Oh, there's a statute directly on Point Minnesota that talks about when peace officers may use lethal force. Yeah, there is. And here's what the statute says. A, notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06 or 609.065, 065. The use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only if an objectively reasonable officer would believe based on the totality of circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight that such force is necessary and necessary to do one of the following. one to protect the peace officer or another from death or great bodily harm provided that the threat one can be articulated with specificity, two is reasonably likely to occur absent action by the law enforcement officer and three must be addressed through the use of deadly force without unreasonable delay. which is a fancy legal way of saying you need to be able to articulate a very good reason and prove to us that you really did not have any other options. Now the imminency that is how quickly could this happen is always a critical component. So had the officer who discharged the firearm maybe been 30 yards down the road and had plenty of time to get out of the way, this would be an entirely different equation here. But let us remember that the officer is directly in front of the vehicle at the time that she decides to punch it.
But then there's additional statutes. Statutes that would apply to anybody in this situation, whether you're a peace officer or not. Take for example Minnesota statute 609.065, justifiable taking of life. That statute specifically states the intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 60906 except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode. So if the ICE officer here reasonably believes that they had been exposed to a high probability of serious injury or death, not only themselves or any other other fellow officers, they are justified in using lethal force. And then, and of course, Governor Tim Walls and Mayor Jacob Frey should know this cuz it is Minnesota law and it took us all of about 10 seconds to look it up. Uh, believe it or not, there is specific law that talks about the authorized use of force against police officers. So, let's say that for whatever reason, the now deceased believed that she had absolutely every right in the world to block traffic, to go out and protest, to obstruct, hinder, delay, whatever she was doing with the ICE operations. Understand that this Minnesota law specifically states deadly force used against peace officers. Deadly force may not be used against peace officers who have announced their presence and are performing official duties at a location where a person is committing a crime or an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult. Well, it is very clear that they did announce who they were. They did announce their presence and what was their whole purpose of being there was to round up people for what? That's right. Illegal activity.
And then there's one other little legal issue that we need to discuss. And I do believe that some who believe this was cold-blooded murder are going to start beating on this drum any time now. Um, and I think it would be relevant if the officer was in fact more like 20 or 30 yards down the road and had a serious opportunity to get out of the way of the moving vehicle because in Minnesota, believe it or not, they have a duty to retreat. Just another strike against Minnesota, why it is really one of the most terrible states in America right now. But under Minnesota law, if you are in a public place and can safely avoid a confrontation or escape from danger, the law requires you to do so before resorting to force. All right? And again, if we take this officer right here, put him all the way down the street here, then I think we could at least analyze this under a duty to retreat. But when you are a mere few feet from the front of a vehicle, which is clearly hellbent on accelerating in your direction, you don't really have that opportunity to retreat.
So, America, seeing both of these video clips, understanding the legal framework, what's your opinion? Do you believe that this was a justified use of lethal force, or do you believe this was excessive force and thus constitutes a homicide? And that is the $64,000 question.
But now let's take more of a 35,000 ft view and ask ourselves this. How did we get here? How did we get here? Well, I suppose when you have literally every single politician from one of the two major political parties, including the most vocal of those coming from the state of Minnesota, uh basically calling ICE officers the Gestapo, the Nazis, uh things such as that where they are essentially advocating for violence against law enforcement officers. And I want you to understand that even though you may not be thrilled with what ICE is doing, understand that ICE constitutes law enforcement and they're just out there doing their job. And there is a time and an opportunity to fight the legality of what law enforcement has done. I've made a living out of doing that. It does not occur on the street, however. It occurs in the courtroom. And it is this villainization. It is this violent vile rhetoric that has come from one side of the political aisle that has created this very incendiary situation uh one of extreme volatility and unfortunately I'm not sure that this will be the last incident that we have to break down where someone gets violent with an ICE officer requiring them to defend themselves.
Okay. So once again I ask all of you what do you think lawful use of lethal force? cold-blooded murder somewhere in the middle. You get to weigh in. All you got to do is let us know what you think down there in the description box. Listen, we'll go ahead and link up everything we relied upon in making this video so that you don't have to take our word for it. You can just geek out on it for yourself. Now, listen. If you got any questions about this or anything else related to what's left of our Second Amendment rights, you guys should not get a hold of Washington Gun Law by now. But if you don't, that's okay. That information down there in the description box. If you got an idea for a video we should be doing around here, go ahead and click on that link right there to tell us all about it. If you want to subscribe to our monthly newsletter and see all the cool stuff that we normally don't get to talk about here on YouTube, there's a link in the description box to do that. And then finally, and most importantly, let's everyone remember that part of being a lawful and responsible gun owner, like we talk about all the time here, is to know what the law is in every situation, how it applies to you in any instance that you may find yourself. Until next time, thanks for watching and stay safe.