Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign. Hey, what's going on, guys? Welcome back to the Mike Force podcast. Oh my gosh. Minneapolis, Minnesota. What is really going on? So, as you guys already know, there was a shooting by ICE officers and is being widely reported, especially on the left, that it wasn't justified. I mean, there's politicians who are calling the use of force policy that this Department of Justice law enforcement agency was using deadly force, calling it murder. I mean, the mayor of Minneapolis came out and said get the F out. I just did a reacts to it on Mike Glover channel on also did an underground episode because it is. There's so much that I want to say, but I can't say it all on YouTube or even this podcast. Let's talk about a few things. One, this happened because this person was right in the middle blocking a convoy of an ICE immigration operation, right? They're going after illegal immigrants in Minneapolis who already, I mean, many of them of Somali descent have through, through prosecution, by the way, have shown they're criminal. Now, the majority of them are actually citizens, but many of them are not. And so there's targeted operations and you have protesters who are getting in the way. We've seen the history and track record of this. Throwing rocks, bottles, ramming ICE vehicles with cars. And this lady decides, this 37 year old Caucasian lady decides to pull up in front of them and block them. Now there's a lot more details that are coming out, but essentially she blocked the lead vehicle. They got out of the vehicle, they go to the door. There's one officer who's standing in front of the vehicle. I believe he has a cell phone. It's hard to see, but that's what was reported. And he's communicating to her with his partner to get out of the car to stop. One of the guys comes up to the door, tries to open the door. It's locked, the window is down. And she goes to back up while he's trying to open the door and he tells her to stop. He gives her a lawful order. When a law enforcement officer gives you a lawful order, you must abide. Now, you could flee and then you'll get charged, but she decides to back up and roll forward. Now, I caught this on two separate camera angles. One from the front where you could see her hitting the officer. He breaks one shot in the lower right portion of the windshield if you're facing it, and then two more. One of those, the second or third one or both, hits her in the head and kills her. She drives, looks to be about 100ft down the road and crashes and she's pronounced deceased. They do send her to the hospital, but she was deceased, likely after she was shot in the head. The radical left across the board, including many people that I've seen in comments, are saying this isn't self defense. I've outlined this and for sure it is self defense. Let me just describe some of the statutes as it relates to objective reasonableness via the Graham factors, which is Graham versus Connor, which is the case precedent for the use of force. One, there has to be a severity of the threat and the use of a motor vehicle against a person presents a high likelihood of death or seriously bodily injury. Remember, it doesn't have to be like this prospect of I'm going to die. It could be a prospect of serious bodily injury. There also needs to be an immediacy of anger, of danger, so this imminent threat that becomes immediate. And once the vehicle is in motion, especially moving forward against the agent, there is sufficient time, there is innocent insufficient time for verbal commands or alternative measures like bailing out of the way. Now the question would be, and a lot of people have commented this, why didn't he move out of the way? Well, he did move out of the way after he was hit because he's trying to preserve life. Now he was hit, he wasn't seriously injured, but he could have been because he's impacted with the vehicle, there has to be an active resistance or assault and in this case the civilian in the vehicle, their actions constituted active resistance and or assault with a deadly weapon. The vehicle is a deadly weapon. Lastly, the availability of alternatives. Now this could be weighed in court which is is there safe retreat or disengagement and is it reasonable under the circumstances. So if the agent was required to make a split second decision to preserve life, then it's not reasonable that they would have an alternative. Meaning he wasn't standing on the side of the vehicle where she had a and easy out, she moved forward, then turned the wheel after striking him. And in fact it's proven because the first round he shot was directly head on with the windshield. So another thing to understand that in the conduct of doing his duties, his job, she becomes a threat to the public and now he can engage her to protect the public because she's driving around. She, she just showed the propensity for violence to try to run him over. He could have shot through the back windshield or the back window of that vehicle and hit her in the back and, and terminated her because now she's a threat to the public. Now there Isn't a specific single statute explicitly authorizing the use of force and defensive life for law enforcement. For federal law enforcement, the statute authority to carry firearms and enforce federal law falls under 18 U.S.C. 3052 or 3052 for FBI agents and analogous statutes for other agencies like ICE and the Fourth Amendment. For Graham vs Connor, it governs all use of force by law enforcement under the objective reasonable standard which I just described to you. So the Department of Justice use of force policy, which authorizes deadly force only when the agent reasonably believes it is necessary to protect the agent. Here's the key. Or others from an imminent threat of danger or serious body injury. So if a car almost hits you, continues to drive down the road, and they think they're going to seriously injure somebody else or kill somebody else, they have the authorization to use deadly force to stop that vehicle or stop that threat. And a moving vehicle certainly when used against an officer, constitutes deadly force due to its capacity to cause death or serious bodily injury. And look, I understand, like, let's get, I mean, honestly, let's get something straight out of the gate. This was not an innocent person gunned down. I, I reacted to this on Mike Glover channel where the mayor is talking about how this was murder, essentially. Do you think this person was antagonized by politicians? Let me, let me know in the comments how you feel about this, because I do. Tim Walsh, the mayor of Indianapolis, have all been spewing left wing radical rhetoric and propaganda inciting violence. I mean, there's, there's very specific talking points of where they do this, and it's disgusting. So they're telling their people in press conferences that ICE needs to get the F out because they're terrorizing their civilians. And I've never seen so much passion from a politician than the Minneapolis mayor. I, I would love for him to have that much passion for inner city violence or protecting citizens versus illegal immigrants who are violent offenders, but that's not happening. They would do anything, anything to divert attention away from the fraud and corruption that at a minimum is $9 billion of taxpayer dollars, including those who live in Minnesota and you and me, because we pay taxes to the federal government that for sure have been diverted to daycares and health care systems, shops, departments that have used it to buy Teslas and vacations, even funneling that money. I'm not making this up. This has been reported to Boko Haram in Africa. So when you look at the numbers where 84% of Somalis of 108,000 in Minnesota are on some kind of welfare. Is that what we want for our country? So welcome to America where you can come and prosper by milking the taxpayers who actually are working their asses off. That's the direction we're headed. So ultimately, here's what matters. A vehicle is a deadly weapon. That's full stop. Every law enforcement officer in America is trained on this. When I saw the chief of police talk about this and he was being very careful to tap dance his way through, I think that dude needs to turn him as badge one. He needs to resign to make a statement to these corrupt politicians that he won't accept this. Because if that was him or one of his officers defending their lives, they would be charged with murder. And believe me, this will escalate for sure. They will likely try to charge this federal officer with a crime. And how you think that's going to work out? Also, every court in America recognizes this as self defense. When someone uses a vehicle to accelerate towards an officer, they are not fleeing. They are using that vehicle as a weapon against them. They're not panicking and they're initiating lethal force that requires deadly force to stop them. Again, I, I just communicated this. If they were driving away, even he would have been justified in shooting in the back of that vehicle to stop that threat because other people were in danger. So deadly force is completely justified. Despite. I just saw a headline on the news that said a federal officer could have moved out of the way. How convenient. How convenient for you to judge that in your editorial to spew rhetoric when you weren't the guy standing in front of a vehicle where she decides to put it in drive and drive forward to run you over. So this isn't controversial, it shouldn't be political, but it should be black and white. It's the letter of the law. So what the radicals want you to ignore is the outrage mob wants to erase one critical detail. She tried to run them down. Instead we get crop videos, emotional framing, loaded language like execution and murder. And the usual implication that federal agents should just absorb lethal threats and hope for the best. Well, hope is not a course of action, so you don't get to rewrite physics here. A two ton vehicle moving at speed is not a misunderstanding. It's not a protest, it's not a speech. It's a weapon. That's pretty clear cut. And look, I'm very critical of law enforcement. I, I, I hammer law enforcement whenever they do the wrong thing. But in this case, this officer did nothing. So, and no one, not an ice Agent, a local police officer, a deputy or federal marshal is required to wait until they are crushed to prove they were in danger. Because if they have the reasonable inclination that they're going to be run down or somebody else is going to be seriously injured or killed, they could use that force to protect themselves. So there's a pattern here of manufactured outrage in the playbook that the left is using. Remove the context. That's step one, dehumanize the officer. I saw the comment threads where people were like, give us his information. Step three, inflate the emotion. Step four, demand consequences before facts. I mean the mayor before just watching one video clip from one perspective, he does a press conference and calls ICE terrorist, murder murderers and says to get the F out. And step five, if facts contradict the story, well, they'll just ignore them. They'll just ignore them. You think you're going to get an apology from the mayor of Minneapolis? I would love to see the DOJ look at what they're saying as they're inciting this violence and do something about it. So this isn't just about justice, it's about power through outrage for them. And Minnesota has become ground zero for this cycle. And I feel bad for law abiding citizens in Minnesota who don't want this associated with their state. Will I go? Never. So if a private citizen tried to run someone over and got shot, the case would be open and shut in self defense immediately. But when the shooter wears a badge, has ICE written on his vest, the rules change. Not legally, but rhetorically. And radicals don't argue law, they argue optics. It's all about optics. They virtue signal the optics and why this matters. It's not about this one shooting. There will be more, by the way, there will be more. It's about whether law enforcement is allowed to defend themselves against lethal threats. They've been getting away with this, by the way. I don't like the fact that these officers are out there without containment, without protection. The governor of Minnesota put out the warning order to his National Guard that they might have to be deployed because of riots. Well, how about you just offer up your police officers to provide protection and containment for these men of federal law enforcement, men and women to do their job. So the expectation doesn't make society safer, it makes us weaker. The final word is this shooting wasn't insane. The overall reaction to it that's happening now in real time is what's insane is pretending a car isn't a weapon. What's insane is pretending intent doesn't matter. What's insane is sacrificing truth to protect a false narrative across every headline. You don't get to try to kill someone then claim victimhood when it fails. And it certainly failed. She found out. And the sooner we stop rewarding that lie, the better off everyone will be. Let me know what you think in the comments down below. I want to say big shout out to my sponsor Carnival for sponsoring this podcast. You guys can use MG10 in the description down below. Also, I got a Coupon code for MG. I believe it's 25. Go see the coupon code down below for Wasat Wagu the meat stick that I'm doing like five a day. I'm eating super clean nowadays. And yeah man, if you want to eat healthy, eat lots of meat. Don't believe the lies and the hype. I appreciate you. Till next time. Peace out.