This shooting in Minnesota is crazy. If you’re on the left, they’re calling it straight up murder. Brian, I’ve watched multiple camera angles, including a closeup slow motion version of that deadly shooting. And to this old prosecutor, it looked like criminal homicide, some level of homicide, whether seconddegree murder or manslaughter.

But then you have the right-wingers who are saying this shooting was clearly justified. She could have moved when they honked the horn, but when they asked her to move, what did she do? She literally hit one of the ICE AGENTS AND GOT SHOT. AND THIS IS when play stupid game, get stupid prizes and uh f around and find out if they had a baby. That’s it.

So, is this murder or is it justified? Let’s break it down.

All right, I’m Nate the lawyer, we’re going to look at the Minnesota shooting, and you are going to decide if this was murder or if this was a justified shooting. We’re going to look at the camera footage. We’re going to look at the law, and we’re going to look at the spin from both sides.

And I’m just going to leave it to you to determine if this was justified or not. So, first, we need to know what happened. Here is the police chief in Minnesota explaining exactly what happened at the time of the shooting. >> My name is Brian O’Hara. B R I A N O apostrophe H A R A. I am the Minneapolis police chief.

The prelim preliminary information that we have indicates that this woman was in her vehicle uh and was blocking the roadway on Portland Avenue midway between 33rd Street and 34th Street in the city. At some point, a federal law enforcement officer approached her on foot and the vehicle began to drive off. At least two shots were fired.

Uh the vehicle then crashed on the side of the roadway. >> So the next question is obviously what was she doing and why was she blocking the street? Here’s what the chief said. >> So the question was what can I share about the uh the deceased? Um there is nothing to indicate that this woman uh was the target of any law enforcement investigation or activity.

This woman was in her car and it appears then blocking the street um because of the presence of federal law enforcement which is obviously something that has been happening not just in Minneapolis but around the country. All right. So now we know why she was there to prevent ICE from arresting people who may be here illegally.

So, she was preventing their law enforcement activity. She was using her car to block their path and something horrible happened. So, first, as always, we’ll start with the law so you know what you’re looking for when you see the evidence and then we’ll look at the evidence and you are going to apply the law to the evidence so you can come to your conclusion at the end.

So, without any further ado, here’s the law. There are two cases that we have to consider. Tennessee v. Gardner from 1985 and Graham v. Connor from 1989. These two cases direct how officers are going to be judged if they use deadly physical force against the subject. So, we’re going to start with the case Tennessee v. Gardner.

Now, in that particular case, police shot a fleeing felon in the back. They witnessed the person committing a felony. The person started running away and they shot and killed the person. And in Tennessee, it was legal to shoot fleeing felons in the back. But the Supreme Court said, “No, that’s actually not constitutional.” And the Supreme Court said unless the person is a serious threat to the officer or other members in the community, then you can’t just shoot them in the back or essentially commit executions on the street because the person’s running away

from you. And as you can see from the Justice Department’s own website, it’s called the fleeing felon rule. Next, we move to the case of Graham v. Connor in 1989. Now in that case if police are using force that force is going to be judged by what the court says is knownas the objectively reasonable standard.

The objectively reasonable standard is an objective standard used to judge an officer’s actions. Under the standard, a particular application of force must be judged through the perspective of a reasonable officer facing the same set of circumstances without the benefit of 2020 hindsight and be based upon the totality of the facts that are known to that officer at the time the force was used.

Now, under the objectively reasonable test for Graham v. Connor, the court gives us three factors that we should consider. Now, these aren’t exclusive. There are many, many other factors that you can consider, but these are three that court points to in the case. One, the nature of the 911 call. Bank robbery, more likely you’re going to use force versus cat stuck in a tree.

Then you have whether the suspect is resisting arrest, more likely that you’re going to be using force. And then last but not least, this is from Tennessee V Garden. Remember, if the suspect is a serious threat to other officers or members of the community, then it would be objectively reasonable to use force to stop that threat.

So, now you know the law and you are going to apply the law to the facts of this particular case. So, let’s look at the facts. >> In this footage taken by a bystander just before the shooting, we can see Good’s maroon SUV partially blocking the street. Good’s partner, seen here outside the car and ICE officer Jonathan Ross are filming each other.

You can see Good in the driver’s seat, waving cars by while Ross begins walking around her SUV. Two more federal officers arrive in this gray truck and approach Good’s vehicle while simultaneously speaking to her. >> So, law enforcement officers with lights and sirens and in full uniform are ordering a motorist who’s blocking traffic to get out of their vehicle.

>> NO. NO [ __ ] The whole encounter from the moment an officer told Good to get out of her car to the third shot lasted just 7 seconds. >> So now quickly let’s just break down what we just saw. With the video slowed down, you can see one officer grabs the door handle as Good begins backing up the car. Officer Ross can now be seen filming with his left hand at the front of the car.

You can see the front wheel spin forward and Ross draws his gun with his right hand. >> So now I want to point you to the front tire and where it’s at. the officer’s in front of the car and the tire is pointing at the officer. So now if you hit the accelerator, you’re gonna run right into the officer. And as you can see, the person in the car is hitting the accelerator.

That’s why the tires are spinning. As you can see, the officer has his gun out. The tires are still pointed directly at the officer and the car is moving forward. Now, at the last second, the tires turn away from the officer, but the officer is struck by the vehicle, which you cannot see from this angle. Now, here’s a second angle from the front of the vehicle.

So, you can clearly see the officer is actually hit by the car. Well, the slow down version is showing me that uh when this the SUV pulls forward, uh they make contact with the uh the agent in the street. And then immediately following that contact, you hear three gunshots follow. So, as CNN’s expert has shown us, the officer was being struck by the vehicle and returned fire while the vehicle was literally hitting him. Here it is in real time.

>> So, next, the officer was recording this incident on a cell phone. So, now let’s look at the incident from the officer’s perspective. Merry Christmas. >> That’s fine, dude. >> I’m not mad. >> Show your face. >> I’m not mad at you. >> It’s okay. We don’t change our plates every morning.

Just so you know, it’ll be the same plate when you come talk to us later. That’s fine. US citizen, former You want to come at us? You want to come at us? I say go get yourself some lunch, big boy. Go ahead. >> Out of the car. >> Get out of the car. >> Get out of the car. >> So now here the wife is antagonizing the officer, asking him essentially, “What are you going to do?” >> I said, “Go get yourself some lunch, big boy. Go ahead.

” So now they realize that ICE is about to arrest them for interfering in federal law enforcement activities and the wife who’s standing outside filming tries to jump back in the car. Get out of the car. So now what you’re going to hear a lot in the media is that the officer placed himself in front of the car.

But as you can see that’s not accurate because while the officer was standing still, the car actually repositioned itself and pointed the front of the car directly at the officer. Now, as the officer was trying to move toward the driver’s side of the vehicle to get from in front of the car, the person hits the gas, striking the officer.

Now, simultaneously, while being struck by the car, the officer lets off three successive shots. So, now that you know the facts, now that you know the law, let’s bringeverything together so you can decide if this officer is justified or not. If we apply the Graham standards to the case at hand, was 911 call blocking traffic? Pretty light, right? Was the person resisting arrest? Yeah, the officers were trying to open up the car door to arrest her or detain her and she resisted.

She didn’t stop the car and get out and talk to the officers. She was actively resisting. And then last, was she a serious threat to the officers or other members of the community? Well, to the officer standing in front of the car, the government saying she was a serious threat. She hit the officer with the car where if you’re on the other side of it, you’re saying she wasn’t a serious threat because she was trying to run away.

The argument here is that this woman’s case is more like Tennessee varder. The police essentially shot a fleeing felon. And the government is saying no, she was a serious threat to that officer and he responded with deadly physical force. Now, if you’re on a jury, you’re going to have to ask yourself, was that officer standing in front of the vehicle? Was that a serious threat to that officer when she hit the gas, car’s going forward and the officer’s hit by the vehicle? And remember, the officer is shooting as the car is hitting him. So, it’s happening

all at the same time. Split second. Now, this is where the media spin comes in because on the left side of the political aisle, they’re only showing you one video. This one. Now, Glenn, that’s one angle. There are obviously other angles that are floating around the internet right now, but I think all of them generally show roughly the same thing, which is that there is an ICE agent right at the corner of the vehicle, that the person in the vehicle was attempting to turn the wheel so that they could flee the scene. And of

course, the ICE agent uh used that as the opportunity to shoot and ultimately kill the person who was uh in the vehicle. Now, just to show you how deceptive that was, he knows there are other angles. He knows there are other videos and he says that none of them are going to make a difference. But obviously he’s totally lying because I think this video makes a big difference in the way you analyze what happened.

So now you know the law, you know the facts, and it’s going to be up to people like you to determine if this officer is going to go to jail for murder or some type of homicide charge or if this was a justified shooting because his life was in danger. Was he being reasonable or was this criminal? I’ll see you in the comments section.

My name is A the lawyer. I’m out. Peace. Okay, so now the screen has gone black and for those of you who have watched to this point, I want to now give you my opinion because I wanted the video to end and now you to hear exactly what I think. Now, for those of you who don’t know, I got 10 years of law enforcement experience.

I also was an assistant district attorney and you know, I’ve been a defense attorney for a long time. This is just my evaluation of the facts as they are. I think the officer has a good defense and I think a conviction here is probably going to be very very very unlikely even without the political nonsense.

The reason why I think is because when the vehicle goes forward and the officer has the gun pointed at the vehicle and he’s actually hit with the vehicle. If that happens, then I don’t think there’s really going to be any court that’s going to say that that’s not a serious threat. And for those facts to manifest themselves, it’s going to probably lead to this officer not being charged with anything.

They may say this is a good shoot. And in this case, I can see both sides where you could say this may not be as clean a shoot as you want, but I don’t think this officer will go to jail. I don’t think there’s going to be any charges brought. If there are charges brought, they’re going to be brought in vain because soon as you put an officer in front of a vehicle and the vehicle goes forward and the person’s pressing the gas, it’s honestly going to be almost impossible to convict that officer.

It just is. It’s standing in front of a vehicle that’s coming at you is a serious threat. And a serious threat doesn’t mean it has to kill you. It just has to seriously injure you. It can break your leg, for instance. That’s a serious threat. Also, there’s a lot of hindsight going on with the political commentary like, “Oh, you see the officer was could have moved out of the way. He could have done something else.

” And the law doesn’t work that way. It’s not about what could have been done. It’s what happened. You’re supposed to avoid looking back and saying he should have done this. What happened at the time and was he being objectively reasonable with the threat that had confronted him. Now, some people are saying it’s the officer’s fault because the officer stayed in front of the car and the officer placed himself in danger. Well, I’ll say this. Two things.

Number one, if there’s a bank robbery, for instance, officers run into the bank and try to stop the bank robbers by shooting them. The bank robbers are killed. Do you think the bank robbers argument is going to be the officers intentionally placed themselves in harm? No. Because the crime is being committed and they were going to stop that crime.

The second response to that question is that the officer being in front of the car doesn’t give the person sitting in the car license to hit the gas and run down the officer. And then if the officer responds with deadly physical force, the person say, “Well, the officer was standing in front of my car so I can kill them.

” That is not the way it’s done here in America. Now, some people may say that it wasn’t proportional. He overacted by shooting at the car who was turning away from him. But at the point in which he’s hit by the car, he’s in front of the car enough to make contact with the car. And I think that is going to be the determining factor in this case.