Glad to have Connor again. Probably not gonna be a really pleasant discussion, but it's one I think we need to have. We're going to discussed a little bit about what happened in Minnesota yesterday with the ICE. Agent who shot and killed a woman. We're gonna have two different takes, and like I said, we're both gonna be respectful about what we think. It's a hot button issue. Having been involved in violent. Instance like this, I do understand how things escalate, and I think it's a good example of how perception by either side. And what you've experienced in life has a lot to do with what you see. So without further further conversation, I'm gonna let Connor kind of kick off just real quick, just to catch everybody up. You have an ICE agent, have ICE agents on and enforcement operation in Minnesota, Minneapolis. They're they're telling a woman to stop. One of them grabs her door. She ends up bumping the agent that it appears as the one that shot bumped him on her way out and was ultimately killed. So Connor, go ahead, give us your perspective. One. If you dispute those facts, go ahead and say what you think about the facts. But the two videos that I saw, the car made contact with the agent, and the agent did shoot the lady. Yeah, So I think I think this is gonna be an interesting one for the next couple of weeks or longer. So I think we are in a position where there is a conflicting viewpoint about use of force in situations like this. But but to your point, the facts as we know them are that the woman Renee Good was parked was stopped blocking a street according to the Minneapolis Minneapolis Chief of Police, I believe between thirty third and thirty fourth Street, essentially blocking the road. From my understanding, there was a ice operation going on down the street. According to Christy nom Department of Homeland Security Director or head of the Department of Homeland Security, one of the ice agent's vehicle excuse me, vehicles had gotten stuck in the snow. We don't see that. The very difficult part about going off of bystandard video right now is that the only videos I've seen have cut in. Once an ice pickup truck pulls up and the officer exits the vehicle. What you see there have been two angles main angles that I've seen, one kind of side on looking almost right next to the vehicle on the back of the back of the vehicle, and you see in that one that she's yes, she's parked across the street. There's a white SUV with its door open to the right of her vehicle, which I believe is the ice vehicle that the officer that did the shooting was in. You see a pickup truck pull up from her driver's side and get out. They approach her vehicle. She tries to. Leave when they yank on her. You know, they grab her door. They're telling her, I guess to get out or to stop, or that she's under arrest or something. You can't really hear clearly everything the officers say. They try and yank the door, she tries to pull away. Based on that angle, it looks like the front driver's side corner of her car may have made conact with an officer that was moving around the front of her vehicle. I would say that there's another angle from up the street that kind of looks down the street towards them, and from that angle, it looks like the officer might be a little further back and that it does not actually directly contact. But that's also the hard thing with situations like that is you have a dark maroon car passing a dark dressed individual, so the colors blend and so you know, I. Think in that video, if we're talking about the same video, you can actually see the ice agent get lifted a little bit and kind. Of scoot it out of the way. So the impact this is the car. It kind of impacts them and scoots them this way away from the front of the car, and then she goes and so as. Things we don't Unfortunately, I think you and I can agree hopefully that neither of the videos give a great spot on view because in the side on video there's another officer in front of him that kind of obscures right as the car and he crossed paths. The one down the road is far enough away and they are both dark colors. That, yeah, that absolutely you could be one hundred percent right and that's what happened. I don't think I'm completely out of line to say that. It could also be argued that he sidestepped out of the way, because that's kind of what it looks like from the side on video. You see as as she's going to leave and turn, you see her wheels turn right and she's trying she's trying to turn to the right to go down the street. He's standing heerish and she goes this way and he side steps to get his angle to take his shot as she's she's coming here, and he goes around. So well, the biggest, biggest thing, and we'll we'll talk more about exactly how it happened. The biggest complaint that I have is two part from the left side. The one you have the mayor. Coming out and making statements. But I don't know how you would look at it. As we're sitting here, we're making guesses on things. He had less video at that point than we did. And he's going to stand up there and basically say that he murdered that ice agent murdered someone. Doesn't open up the possibility, any possibility of these dudes are just doing what their ordered to do within the constraints of what their constitutional responsibilities are and what federal code says they're supposed to do. You obviously have and we've talked about this before. You know, we talked about sanctuary cities and all the problems, and this is an example of what you and I talked about the worst of the worst. And I'm not saying that that's what they're doing in this operation, but we discussed why isn't ICE. Going into areas that are not as. That are hardened somewhat and it's not tactically expedient for them to go into those areas. And this is a classic example what that does. And I'll break it down real quick just from an officer standpoint. And I'll always say when it comes to law enforcement or military experience, I have neither. I will not say that I'm an expert in any way, shape or form when it comes to those things. I will always default to you your procedural knowledge and you're in the field knowledge because it's something I just don't have. Well, let's talk a little bit about from what I see, is you have. I would say. Obviously something that drew attention of ICE and DHS to go up there because of the immense problems that they've had, well documented problems. We can argue, why are you doing it now? For all the fraud that was going on with the Somalian population up there, you can talk about all that, but at the end of the day, they attracted the attention of the federal government. The federal government said there's a problem here. I think we read. We may disagree on the way that handled it, but like I think we both agree that the fraud that was going on up there and in general is not good for the country because you know, it's it's never good when you have, just from your viewpoint of the the social programs that are available, when people are taking advantage of this program, people are making significant amount, significant amount of money from the government getting these grants, and they're using them for self indulgence, for lack of a better way for their own to have their own pockets, rather than deliver services. That's problematic, and so maybe we can, I mean, we can talk about that a little bit more. But my frustration, more than anything from the left is it's fine for you to dislike President Trump, but let's not like throw a civil servant. I mean, that's one of the things that was argued with the people federal employees. Do we pick and choose what or employees we like? Is it based on who's in power who's not in power? Because I think about one of the one of the things I saw posted online is the Capitol police officer that shot that on armed female that was just pushing bodily into the chambers and and he was acquitted, and I think rightfully, so, I mean, you can argue sinematics, but like from my standpoint, the left is used that as like, hey, they were doing this really bad thing. And you know, and you can argue, I mean, you you sent me. That article, you know, in the video about what happened to the two police officers from d C the Metro PD in Metropolitan Police Department in d C, and like that was that was tragic. The fact that the people that I understand that there are a lot of people scooped up that were that were kind of like periphials. But at the end of the day, like the people that. Actually grabbed the second officer that was interviewed and drug him out there and tased them and caused him all those injuries, there's no way that person should have been pardon one. You know, if you you attack a police officer. And I think that's where I'm coming from. In a civil society, law enforcement is the bear between uh, the criminal in some areas criminal element, but also restores. Order and order. Order in this case is you know, you've got stop signed, so there's order. You have you know, street lights, street uh stoplights, you have all those different things to maintain order in the civil society. Anybody that's been overseas without traffic laws will tell you it's it's you know, it's like running an alley out there. You know, you'll have you'll have a three lane road that has six or seven cars and it's just chaos. And I think that's one of the really good things about America is there is that buffer of law enforcement. But you can't pick and choose what you like about law enforcement when it doesn't fall on your side. I mean, either either hey, he's trying to do his job. She is not doing what she was told to do, which was stop the car. I understand the argument, like she was afraid, she was this, she was that. But like, at the end of the day, she's committing what I believe is the criminal uh intent, the criminal intent to. Block erode appropriate. And obviously. Recently we've seen officers shot at and everything else. Officers shot at it. On the one second, because I'm curious while we're right there, because you started to sort of say it, and I wanted to This was a question I was gonna ask anyway as a active duty police officer in that situation, based off the only the videos we've seen, what what criminal charge do you think they would have been approaching her with just based on the video, Because there's other factors that we don't see in the video that I think might change her I don't know. I don't know what the federal code would be, like local code would be obstruction of justice. And then what so so on that, because I think this is. Gonna be a good like like point for point is what was she obstructing in that video? From what we see, what was she obstructing? She's obstructing what they are trying to accomplish. Based on your statement, she went there to block the roadway, so. She she was blocking the roadway. But based on Christy Nomes statements, and if you look at the video of where the truck comes from the situation that the operation that Ice was doing was down the block from her, she was up the block blocking the road I presumably so that traffic could not kick down because and I personally have not seen the video of her doing this, but it's popped up through a few sources, and you and I can both agree that early on in a situation and right off. The cuff stuff gets thrown out. So don't you know, quote me on this one, but it sounded like what I've heard from a couple people is that she was waving traffic by to kind of It almost sounds like she was trying to assist in not necessarily assist ICE, but assist the community in traffic flow, to stop cars from going down towards ICE while they're carrying out their operation down the block. And that because you see that pickup truck come from down the block and pull up to her. In the one video from further up the street, you see like a little black suv that I think had ICE in it go from down the street to her, around her and then carry on, or from the side of the road passed her around her and carry on. So from my understanding, she wasn't like blocking an ICE agent from getting down to what he was doing. They were already doing their thing and she was just on the on the side, you know, one hundred yards up the road. All right, Well, she's clearly in the middle of the road. Yeahobically, enough of a problem where you have a you have a group of agents that are trying to remove her from there, and then when she decides she's not going to move based on what I saw, that's when the incidant happened. I think the problem in all this is law enforcement has a job, and if you disagree with the job that we're doing, either elect different people or don't just stay out of it. I mean, that's the bottom line. The bottom line in all this is you can't introduce yourself into a violent situation, into an arrest as a civilian and expect a positive outcome because it just doesn't happen. I understand that there are times where people want to protest things and everything else. That's what courts are for. You have civil remedies if they do something wrong. We can be sued civilly for not doing what we were supposed to do constitutionally. All these different things are options that people have. When it gets to the point where you are interfering with lawful, lawful law enforcement operations, then you are part of the problem. And these guys and the and that's to me, that's I blame. I don't blame that female nearly as much as they have created. It created an environment. The mayor has furthered that environment by saying all the stuff that he said about ice ice and we don't want you here, and all this other stuff. And at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if we're gonna if we're gonna apply it across the board, it doesn't matter in my opinion, what anybody thinks. The fact is the discussion needs to be they are creating a hostile environment, hostile work environment for ICE agents and law enforcement operating in cities that say they don't want them there. But the fact is, you wanted all the different benefits from the federal government, you abuse those benefits. You have an executive brand that has decided, hey, we are going. To go after this. If she if she had some type of gripe or anything else, that is not something that is not something you do on the side of the road in the middle of the eye. So for that then, because so this is a bit of information that has come out since yesterday that I would like to because I think this is the spot where it would come in. We are assuming that she was there. As for lack of a better term, let's say an agitator someone to hey, you shouldn't be here, blah, blah blah, like get out, we don't want you here, like what we've seen in videos from other cities and in the past. But what's come out last night is that this woman, renee Good, I'll say allegedly again information is still being confirmed, but allegedly she was a constitutional observer, which is something that I had not. Heard of, but it is. I'll give you a quick quick definition here. A constitutional observer is a trained, impartial volunteer who monitors and documents interactions between law enforcement and the public, especially during protests or immigration enforcement, to ensure constitutional rights like due process and free speech are respected. Informing people of their rights and connecting them with support a distinct and direct legal distinct and direct legal advice. So I take that to be if I'm going. To let's go through each one of those who who trains these people who Yes, I mean the word we're using a word of a constitutional observer. We're in the US Constitution. Does it give the right for a person to act as the constitutional observer of this or is this something that's created? So I feel like I short answer, I don't know. This is just the like I said, I heard last night. And I think that's the key. The key is is that we I think we're in agreement that we are operating in a constitutional democracy. On paper, you can argue different points about that, but like when we go day by day by day, we look at it and hold on. No, you're good, you keep talking. I got this. Okay, I'm jump and over doing new tab Okay. So like from my standpoint, when I look at it, I think we have constitutional things that that go on, and when they go on, we have to look at it and we have to say, okay, is this part of what has been ratified and as part of the constitutional process in the United States of America. I think when you create terms and and again it very well could have been after George Floyd where they were like, Okay, we're gonna have these constitutional observers, and then what exactly does that mean that do they really have the legal right? Because that's that's where it boils down. And I feel like that's where kind of the rubber meets the road. People can toss out these really nice words, but how does how does it actually how is it actually part of the process that the government's operated in. So different. I'll on on on, just on this while we're on it. I shared my screen with you here, so if I don't know if you paid attention to my my you know, googling there. But first I put in what is it? You know, constitutional observer? Origins of a constitutional observer, and it took us to seventeen eighty seven London, so we had to cueak that just a little bit for the US, right, you know, off the cuff here is from the University of Michigan. The concept of a constitutional observer in the United States is rooted in the principles of the US Constitution, which serves as the supreme law of the land. The Constitution's origin Tractedy blah blah blah blah. Constitutional observers are individuals who monitor the application of the Constitution and its laws within the United States. They're trained to observe and document situations where the Constitution's rights may be at risk. So what I'm going to do now. Is all right, so while you're looking at new trains, well, let's think about that. What constitutional off you know that constitutional observers. First of all, if. You're going to be an observer, when the guy that taped everything that happened in Minnesota, like we could. He could go in there and say, hey, this this childcare center wasn't open. This one wasn't open, but he documented it. So my question is, what are you doing in the middle of the road as a constitutional observer? You are actually, to me, you are making yourself part of an operation. And if you're just an observer, Let's put it this way. If somebody runs on the field in an NFL football game, are they a player or are they a fan? At that point, it doesn't know they're a disruption because they're directly putting themselves within the within the field of action, so to speak, and. Just go with that thought process. Who determines who determines in a football game where the field of play is and the rules that are applied there stadium? No, No, it is the officials. Yeah, what are law enforcement? Yeah no, they're they're officials. But where I think that this is like you're you're absolutely right and and this so I think this is where situations like this get can become so headbutting and and argumentative with with some folks that aren't as capable of having such lovely and thoughtful conversations as you and I do. Right, Is that You're like, you're not wrong, your your your view is objective, your assessment is accurate, your knowledge of the factors that that that you have at your disposal, all of it is like, I'm not gonna in any way say. That you're wrong. What I what my side of the view, my personal side of the view would be, is that also doesn't mean that my assessment of the situation is wrong either, because you're absolutely right that this woman. Is part and blocking the definitely two sides definitely be sides. I think. I think my point in it that I have struggled with the most. We can argue how back and forth about and we can continue that. But like, my biggest problem with this whole thing is for me is the fact that you have elected officials on the left demonizing a group of people for doing their job. And I feel like people think that they can take the law in their own hands. A classic example, and it goes back to the Trump side of it, sovereign citizens. We have those people that are like, I do not recognize the con and all this other thing. People confuse the heck out of me. I don't understand what they do. What they do is I think people forget that it's a democracy. The majority, the majority rules, and the way you establish the majority is bring people to your size with hopeful conversations. Theoretically, but at the end of the day, that's my biggest problem. Let's go a little bit more into the constitutional thing about that, because, like I said, my biggest thing with that, right, my first knee jerk reaction to that is is if you're going to be an observer, you need to be an observer, you need to stay out of the field. Well, and that's that's so, that's I think the That's what I was gonna say a second ago. Where I think that that's where that I guess discretion or where again I'm not gonna say you're wrong, but I think it's where I also am bear in my assessment is like I look at that and say, okay, again, us, based on the video we have and based on statements that have been made right. To me, let's say she is so I look. Constitutional observers are typically trained by, it says, trained by in the US, typically conducted by organizations in this case such as the Minnesota DFL, the Immigration Defense Network, and local community groups. So they are not trained by like a judicial they don't go to you know, six weeks of boot camp, or they don't take like a federal course. So that's that's definitely a point that will come up where it's like, Okay, what type of training is at what is the validity of her training and all that. But when I look at this situation and you say, you know, the dude running onto the field and storming the field is interrupting the game absolutely in this because we see multiple vehicles, but specifically the pickup truck drive up to her. Where I my assessment of this, you know, is that whatever operation was happening was going on down the rope, so at least enough of a distance that the cops felt it necessary to get or the ice agents felt it necessary to move their vehicles up, not just take two steps to the left and confront this lady. So where I would go is like, now, now it's the subjective view of was she in the situation or was she next to the situation down the road, Because to me, if she's down the road observing, you know, one hundred and two hundred yards away, fifty yards away, and she's not yelling at them, she's not interfering with their detainment of whoever they had, you know, in handcuffs or what. We don't know what they were doing yet, we don't have video of that. So to me, she is not injecting herself. She is down the road. She is seemingly quiet. She's potentially blocking the street. But the argument could be made she's also blocking the street. You know, you could say from ICE agents getting out. I could say from pedestrians and the public going down that road and getting too. She could be blocking. So but again that's not that is again, that's the playing field the people that are conducting those operations get to set. Because I'm just telling you from my standpoint, gealing in environments like that, you said a perimeter. She was at the outer perimeter. They're trying to get people out of there. They in the past, ICE has been hit with bottles, stuff thrown at their vehicles and everything else. It's not again, this is not all of a sudden. Ice is like, Hey, somebody's gonna do something bad to me. We need to get out of this area after we And. It's also she's not sitting there saying, hey, all of a sudden, I feel it's necessary to pay attention to this one. ICE has had a track record. Of doing stuff too that has pushed people to feel like they need to watch when. They're in the neighborhood. What does that mean? So to your point where you know, you're saying that ICE had bottles thrown at them, I said, and I'm not disagreeing. There have been multiple documented cases of people becoming very aggressive towards ICE agents, but there have also been instances of There was the car in actually. It may have also been Minnesota. I don't remember where it was. No, I think it was California. I don't remember, but it was ICE agents were driving down the street and people from the sidewalk were saying, hey, you know, get out of our neighborhood. We don't want you here, they were yelling. I won't deny that. But then the dude dropped a tear gas canister out the side of his car in a neighborhood near it, I believe near a school or near children or civilians were around. And from the video it looks like he's not like he's just chilling on the side with his arm up and then just pops a tear gas canister drops out the window. There's the priest that I talked about in a previous episode that got shot in the head with a pepper bullet preying outside an ICE institution or ICE attainment center. I sent you the video of that one, where again, just based on the video, it's just a bunch of people saying, Hey, we like rotest, so. Where we're at, so we'll find a common ground. I feel like you're saying that there are instances where ICE handled the situation wrong. I'm saying that the civilian population has interrupted things that ICE was doing. Both sides have handled it at poorly in moments. And so from my standpoint when I look at it, I think, yes, that is what the judicial system is for. So the priest that was shot, then he has the opportunity to go to court and see if his constitutional rights were violated by federal agents. He has criminals, all those different things he has an option of doing. Again, the problems. That are had, based on my experience with law enforcement and interactions with the public, the problem begins when the general public decides, Okay, I am going to use this interaction as my courtroom, and that's not what this That's not what this is for. If you have an issue. It's not like you don't have a video camera. Everybody has a phone video what happened, and then go see a judicial remedy. And I understand that, you know the history of our country has been the protest and different things like that, but I also think there have been some really bad things that happened as a result of those protests. January sixth. January sixth is a classic example. I mean, you can people can split airs and go and depend on what side you're on to say, well, that was a peaceful It wasn't peaceful. January six wasn't peaceful, but neither were all the George Floyd riots, the BLM rights and everything else. My biggest complaint at this point, just based on the limited information that we have, is the fact that you have someone I understand you're saying she wasn't she was possibly blocking the street. Clearly her car is in the middle of the street. There's part she was blocking the street. I'm saying she was possibly, but that's it. But that is not the responsibility of civilians. It's no different than when you want to talk about chaos, go to a walmart where everybody's park from the fire lane. You know, if it's a fire, you can't get a fire. Truck in there. Like, at what point do you say enough's enough? We establish a boundary. And I think that's what I would say to people that have a problem with the policies, immigration policies, then go and then then make the changes. There's an election coming up this year, you know, midterm election. Take advantage of that. But like this stuff is this the law still applies. It applies to us in law enforcement. So let me let me hit you with two things then, as far as ice and and the law and and just get your get your feedback on. So these are these are two points. One of them, this first one I pulled specifically from UH the d o J website. It's it's a section of their training manual and it's for the use of UH necessary force. And so this says, I believe it's like Title I, Section sixteen or something like that, but it says, firearms may not be discharged solely hold on, sorry, firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless one a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly forced by means other than the vehicle. Two, the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury, and no other objective, objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle. Both of those things, and this is from the DOJ training manual, So I say both the two takeaways from those are deadly force may not be used if the only weapon is the vehicle, So she would have to have had a gun pointed at them or some second. That's that's not what that means. That means. I'll give you an example of what that means is if that officer that was holding on to her door right if he he could not he was not in a position to discharge his fire because she wasn't a threat to him, okay now, Or if he ran to the front of the car and told her to stop, that would have been a problem. Well no, so it says, I'm just telling you what the I'm telling you. Have worked for a Department of Justice, have gone to these briefings. I'm giving you the the answer of what happens. I understand what it says but again, you're interpreting what it means I am telling you from actual thing is. I'm not interpreting because if you look at it, it's the literal words are a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly forced by means other than the vehicle. The vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious. It's either it's an either or thing it. Is it's not though, that is what it is. Number one, it would be somebody sitting inside of a vehicle and they pull a gun and they're shot. That is the deadly force that is referred to in that first paragraph. The second paragraph is do not put yourself like You can't shoot a car that's going away from you. You can't. And there's constitutional precedent on all this. There's as far as the use of deadly force and how we can use deadly force, I understand. But what I'm telling you is those are two entirely separate. It is part of their policy, but there are two different things. One is I'm saying that I pull a car over, I'm standing there, they decide to take off. I can't shoot in that car unless they have a gun and some other things that are there. That's what that paragraph is saying. The next paragraph is saying, if you use the gun used, if you use the vehicle. Read the second paragraph. Uh, hold on. Part two, the vehicles operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle. So, and I'll default to you in one second. To me, I read that based on this situation that they're saying that she was using this vehicle as a weapon against ice. But if you look at the vehicle, there was an unobstructor look at the video, there was an unobstructed, clear path for any of the officers to take a step back and away from the vehicle to driver, like away from the driver's side, and get reasonably out of the way of that vehicle. So I take that. Again, no other objectively reasonable means of defense that appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle. To me, they had a clear reasonable path away from the vehicle that, in firing their weapon violated this part of this rule because it wasn't a last resort. This is telling them, if I'm reading it right, to just get out of the way. If there's a if there's a clear path to move out of the way of the vehicle, you do that rather than shoot. Okay, So, having been involved in situations like this before. Two things that you look at from a law enforcement standpoint. What's on either side of her car that's in the middle of the road park cars? Correct? Now, if you look at so so if what I'm saying, there's the car on the passenger. Side, listen to what I'm saying. We're not arguing schematics. The fact is there are part cars on that entrance. Yes, correct, there are part cars on that because you hit a part car. She had two part cars. Oh that was way down the road though, that was. But there are part cars. This is what I'm trying to tell you is if an officer is stuck on the side of that vehicle and is driven into those cars, that will cause death to them. Correct, But there were no cars that he would. Have been right if you look at the videos she so, I agree. If an officer is coming right to left, like sitting in her car, from the right front of her car to the left front of her car, right. The one the officer that crosses in front of her right. If she drove to the right where there are no officers, I would agree that would be a problem. That which is what she was doing. Her wheels were turned to the right, she was pulling every every indicator of that vehicle is that she was going down that back. That's when she got shot and killed and her foot hit the gas. That's the path that car went. That's why it went down that way, because it went to the right away from the officer that shot. I think we're talking about two different videos then, because in the video that I saw you had, she drives towards the officer that's at the front of her car and hits the h where that she So let's just say where she was sitting the driver's side, we'll call that the left side. Did she not drive to her left. No, she drove to her right here. So let me do this, do doo. And so for anyone who's watching this or tuning in viewer discretion, advizz I'm about to show the video of the shooting. So if you don't yeah this, Hopefully this is a somewhat censored version of it. I know it's New York Times. It's just the first thing that popped up when I googled the ice video. But let's uh see here. All right. So first off, so as we're looking her wheels are currently turned driver side. If you looked, turn to the left, correct, turn to the left in front of her. There are no cars parked along that far sidewalk. So the officers are approaching and ahead, keep going. So officers are approaching. This first officer is grabbing the door here Again we don't really know. Presumably they're saying stop, get out of the vehicle. All that. So a federal agent right there. She's backed up, wheels turn. Left, wheels are now turning right, and she's turning. She is turning away from that officer as he's shooting her or shooting at. The vehicle he's up at the thirty. She is clearly pulling away to the right. There's reasonable space for them to take two steps back where there's no vehicles, there's nothing obstructing in front of her vehicle. Seven year old Renee Nicole. I think if you look at the other video there, it is like she is turning into them there at her left, she bumps them and then goes back. I agree, she bomps and goes back to the right, but her path was left towards where the officers were. Go away, Facebook, No one likes you, Dumm, there's the I'll just do it this way. This is gonna be a great moment for Woody to cut out of. Just so, like I said, from my standpoint, again, it's just. And that's what the court will decide. Is the court will decide whether, because I fully expect, based on all the rhetoric and everything else, still probably file a. We'll use, we'll use Well, what's that Fox News? Okay? Hold on? Still am I still screen sharing this? Now? Give me one second. So here's ah, here's Fox News report on. Uh on that. Let's bring in Kerry, Urban Fox News legal editor and former counselor to Attorney General Bill Barr Kerry. So I'm just going to fast forward through. Okay, So here's a good one. Oh, this is actually one I haven't seen yet. Right now, all right, So we've got her car park, you're right, wheels are pointed to the left. There's a white SUV door open presumably, and you can see her arm outside of the window. Waving this gray suv by I believe that gray car is a ice vehicle because I think from a different angle you see the headlights and and it's got lights on like red and blues on. So it goes through. So she's still wheels are still pointed. You see this pickup truck pull up. Again. What I just saw was her wave the officers through to go around her. Which again again that's not her. That's it's not her responsibility, it's not not her job. But again stop, okay, they. Get out, they're approaching, will still point into the driver he grabs. So I believe at this point this suv, the silver one, is where the officer that shot came out of. So presumably he's on the other side of her car right now. Okay, yep, there he is. So he is now just popped forward for argument. There is a park car behind him to the left, and there's a park car to the right, and also their vehicle will continue. Yes, but there's nothing in front of them. There are no park cars in front of them. So right there, he's already got the gun pulled. She's she's turning to the right sort of. See the wheels are no longer. They're at least no longer pointed left. Now they're pointed right. Now they're pointed right. She's turning rights, shooting as she's turning right, and he has plenty And again what I'm saying is based off of their rule of h reasonable way, including moving out of the way of the vehicle. There's plenty of room for both of those officers to take multiple steps back all the way to the sidewalk if they wanted to and let her go by. But she's already been shot at this point. So after being shot that she goes down the road and crashes because she's already dead. Here fits on the. Game agent who was in front of that vehicle, and. He's clearly not injured because he's well, I should I shouldn't say that was in the speak. I apologize. We don't know if he's injured or anything at this time, but he's just walking down the street after her. So here, I guess, is another one. You can see the officer went around the front. To just watch. Quite as as we watched. They're approaching, she puts it in reverse to get out of the way. She's trying to go to the right. That was not a great vie. You didn't. Trying to We. Could say, we could say she was trying to flee, or she was trying to leave or whatever. But I think, at least from what I see, she is turning to the right away from the officers. All right, So let's let's break it down real simple. As far as that turn. She was given an order by the people that controlled that scene, which were the ice agents. They told her, this is what you need to do, and instead of doing that, she decided to do something else. It's unfortunate that she lost her life in doing so, I'll and I'll say that, Yeah, I think that's what the courts are for the courts And my biggest complaint is we can argue back and forth as far as you know. What time had happened, how it happened. I just would like to say from somebody that's experienced those things, is there's split seconds and a video will show you out of the way, and a different angle will show and I think the different angle was down the street where you could actually see the ice agent get lifted. So and if you. Look at the you look at where the round that impacted the windshield. It wasn't like to the side, it was straight down the side of the car, which would indicate she was driving into his path. We can argue whether he should have got out of the way and all that. My biggest problem in its entirety for the left is they are creating an environment that is not only dangerous for the ice agents, but I feel like they have some responsibility in the death of this woman, even to the point of we're going. To train you. Here's the problem. You have a you have a young lady, relatively young, and you tell her you're a constitutional officer, which gives her the opinion that like, oh, well, I can tell law enforcement what they're supposed to do. I'm going to park my car in the middle of the road and when they tell me to stop, I can drive away because I can do whatever I want to do. And that's not the case. That's not that's not the country that we live in. You litigate, you litigate in court, you don't litigate on the side road. And that's the problem. Go ahead, well, and I think the hard thing in in situations like this, for anything, is the recording cuts in at the time of the incident. We don't like there's no one standing. At least no video has come out of the two minutes five minutes prior to any of this, So we don't know how long she was there, We don't know what Ice was doing, We don't know how far away truly they were. So I make you know, that leaves the door open to people making like me, assumptions or I would like to say, educated guesses. And it's also hard when you can't so like the one video from the side, the lady next to the dude recording is screaming the whole time of what are you doing? Don't shoot her? Or something like she was she was. It was a loud so you can't hear the officers. We don't know what this woman, Renee Good was saying. She she could have been in the car saying, hey, you're not supposed to be here whatever, or she could have been in here in the car saying I'm just here to observe. I'm, I'm you know what we don't have of the audio. Do you know if Ice wear's bodycam. That I saw the report they said they didn't. None of those I would say that would be the most revealing of any of it, because it would have the whole interaction of the two of them if they wear body cam. But like, like I said, I think I think you are spot like. I think you are very reasonable with your assessment of the situation. I don't think there's anything necessarily that can be straight up disproven. I think while mine might be uh, you know, benefit of the doubt to the to the woman, I don't think it's necessarily completely out of the realm of possibility. But it's also I think he asked. You this, and we're talking about a civil society, yeah you have, and we talked about leaders and you know, trying to divide. Is it Is it not divisive to have the leader of a city that size come out and say before he had any any real information, you know, he had a quick look at a video, or let's say, let's look look at a couple of videos. We spent almost an hour discussing a video. But he has enough to come out there and say that this woman was murdered. What that sets up, in my opinion, is all the stuff that happens down the domino effect. The domino effect is you have rights, you have all these different things that go on because somebody who is supposed to be somebody we can trust and give trustworthy information comes out and says that these ice agents murdered this woman and the facts aren't in and so to say that and to create that environment, and then again time will tell, the information. Will come out. But at the end of the day, what I would ask people to do is let's not demonize the people that are executing the policy. I don't like the policy. Elect somebody with a different policy, But at the end of the day, civil servants are doing what they have been tasked to do. There's clear code that says and we can talk about immigration. I think we've had that on the on the on deck for a while. So to the point, because I think you're right, you're absolutely correct that that the elected officials we have have a responsibility for decorum, for keeping the peace when the citizenry is agitated, and you're you're right that the mayor standing up there and saying, you know, this is bullshit. Well using a word that they murdered somebody without the correct. Let me let me read this to you. The woman screaming was obviously a professional agitator, and the woman driving the car was very disorderly obstructing and resisting, who then violently, willfully and viciously ran over ran over uh the ice officer who seems to have shot her in self defense. It's hard based on the attached clip, it is hard to believe he is alive but is now recovering in the hospital. That's from the President saying that she violently ran over him and that it's surprising he's alive. If anything, if she did hit him, she bumped him, it wasn't violent. She wasn't flooring it. She wasn't trying to pin. Him between that's the problem. If you look at it, she is flooring it. You can see your wheel spinning. She was on ice. It's ice away from now. That's one of the it's not a funny situation, but that's one of the things that I thought, you know, But my point is the one thing, one thing to say the ice agent was ice on the ground because her tires were spinning. So but go ahead. But my my point is, like I don't disagree that the mayor, you know, saying murder and calling it bullshit exacerbates the situation. But if we're going to have that, if we're going to take that stance. That stance has to apply everywhere because it was Christy Noms saying coming out and talking about a situation that she also had only seen one video on. She was saying, you know, talking about I forget her exact words, but they're they're similar. That she weaponized her vehicle, and this, that and the other, which which if she's getting away like, the semantics of it are, yes, you know, her vehicle could be used as a weapon in that situation. I disagree that she was flooring it with malicious intent to wound the officer. But when you look at a tweet from the President with the same information that all of us had, the exact same information that the mayor had to say that this cop is surprised to be alive and that he was run over, which he wasn't. If he was bumped, he wasn't on the ground. The car didn't go over him by definition of running over, he was not. That's the President exacerbating just as much. And he's notorious for doing things like that, so that. Yeah, but I say it's I don't think it's a liberal thing. I think there's both sides. But if you take that statement at face value, I think I would agree more if he said these all these agitators need to be locked up there, this, this, and this. I think that would have been one thing to demonize a group. That is my issue. My issue is you're identifying one group of people and you're saying they killed that, they murdered this woman, and this is bullshit, and that's that's that's not that. That is not the place to be. I don't disagree. He could have put different words, and it's not an accurate representation of what happened. I will say that, like you can take it either way. It's I think about the assassination at Temple Warre that hit him in the ear, and it was like, well just hit him in his ear. Well, that's because he turned in the same way. If that agent would have been at the front of the car he did, I think we can agree. Barring something else happened, it could have been a tragic situation for the agent where he got run over at the end of the day. Though I err on the side of let's prevent stuff like that, and I think one of the ways to prevent stuff like that is to have like what we were talking about before is like, look, you have clear set rules that say, don't obstruct a police officer. If you want to video something that you think is wrong and is a constitutional issue, if you're a constitutional office observer, we issue press passes. If that is such a thing and that's what you want him to do, then put that on there so they're not confused with an agitator that's going to throw something at him, shoot at him, and everything else. Because that's the other thing is it's not unreasonable for them to think they've been shot at because they not. I think it was in Texas where they actually shot a detainee instead of the ICE agents. But they're ripping off rounds in a detention facility, so it's not like we're operating environment where these guys has got up and like they were. They were in an ice city where everybody loved them and everything was going good. They were working in a hostile environment and they reacted, So go ahead, we got. No, you're fine, No, it's you're right. Like I do think that there are we we as a as a as a nation, left right military, police, government, civilian. Have gotten to a point of exacerbation that. The the the dial is just baseline set to eight on everything. People walk up to Ice and it's assumed that that person is an agitator, that that person is some left lunatic trying to do whatever. You know, Ice rolls up on what could be a perfectly legal detainee and or perfectly legal, the tension a stop, and it's assumed that, oh, they're kidnapping an American citizen, because that's the divisiveness that we've met, or that the nature of where we are currently sitting with the atmosphere in the in the US. And I think there is a certain degree in my opinion of expected so forens I would use like if your daughter or son or kid is losing his shit in some situation, you know, having a temper tantrum, it's the adults responsibility to not go down to that level, but to mitigate that situation and be the calm center. We as citizens are the children. We react, We are emotional, especially in groups. So it is the responsibility of our elected officials left and right to maintain and re establish civility. I think we have gotten to a point where that is not that is not a thing anymore. Across the board. There are you know, I could easily sit here and pull two dozen examples from you know, any of our you know, Trump, Christy, nom like, any of these folks of saying things that I could argue are exacerbating and agitating and inflaming a situation. And you could easily do the exact same with people from the left, with you know, AOC or potentially new some or some of these mayors or governors like I know that we could find that and we could make very solid arguments for those things being. Not helpful to the situation. But the the fact I think that remains is that when we look at these situations, we have to we have to maintain civility. But it is a higher responsibility the higher up the chain you go to maintain a level head and to not feed into that. So to me, a mayor of a town where it happened, yes, absolutely should be held to a certain degree of responsibility. But a president or a department of a federal department head or at a higher level, in my book, regardless of their affiliation, I don't care if it's Trump or Biden, or Obama or Bush. Your job is to be infallible. Your job is to be the parent of all the parents and My personal opinion is Trump has not been that he's been as much a toddler as any of us uh and now left on the left as well, not saying my people are free and clear. But my view on this is one thing. You know, one thing I will always give Obama credit for was his charisma, his ability to be an orator, and his ability to be a parent when it was needed. Like you look at when. He announced It's it's a fun comparison, but it's it's when he announced uh Ben Madden's death as opposed to Trump announcing the other guy's death that I can never pronounce his name, but Abdul Bakari I think was his name. And it's just it's this really interesting comparison of the two of Obama's like, hey, you know, we we got him, we carried out this successful mission, and we have we have killed Osama bin modern. Meanwhile, Trump sits there and goes, oh, we got him. We killed him like a dog, like we we destroyed everyone. And so it's that aspect of you know, there's a certain degree of kuth that has been lost in the last ten or so years that I think is is keyly important to elected officials and especially the higher you go. Okay, so I'm gonna wrap it up, but I do think you. Have excellent points as far as you know the quorum and things like that. I don't necessarily agree with the higher up you go because I think as individuals were responsible for our own actions. You know, from my standpoint, the biggest issue that I would say, and I would tell people that involve themselves on either side of the issue, is it's another human being that you're dealing with. And that's the strategy of this. A young lady lost their life, an agent has to deal with the fallout of making that decision. There's nobody in law force. It's like, man, I really, I'm really excited. I got to kill somebody today. Yeah, it doesn't happen. And so unfortunately people are getting spun in a blender of hate on both sides. And I just hope people will slow down and instead of looking at somebody as a competition, they look at it as they're both we're both American and we're both human, and that in and of itself gives you standing to have an opinion that may or may not like be like mine. But I need to slow down and listen and. Absolutely I really appreciate your time, and we're going to conclude for today. Like I said, uh, it's always good to have you on here, so
