Mike Force Podcast – "Murder or Self-Defense | ICE in Minnesota"

Host: Mike Glover
Date: January 8, 2026

Overview

In this episode, Mike Glover addresses the recent controversial shooting involving ICE agents and a protester in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Glover explores whether the officer’s actions constituted murder or legitimate self-defense, provides legal context, and critiques both political and media responses. He aims to clarify misconceptions and defend law enforcement's right to protect themselves when facing lethal threats, while expressing frustration with what he sees as manufactured outrage and political opportunism.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Incident Breakdown

• Timeline and Actions:
  • ICE was conducting an operation targeting illegal immigrants, with some protest history involving violence against officers ([01:10]).
  • A woman, described as a 37-year-old Caucasian, blocked the ICE convoy’s lead vehicle.
  • Officers ordered her to exit her car and tried to open the door. She backed up, then drove forward, striking an officer.
  • The officer fired three shots through the windshield, fatally injuring the woman ([02:30]-[04:00]).
• Glover’s View:
  • He underscores the escalation, explaining that the officer gave lawful orders and responded only after being struck.
  • Glover argues the car was used as a deadly weapon, justifying the use of deadly force.

2. Legal Context and Use of Force

• Graham v. Connor (Objective Reasonableness Standard):

  • Severity of the threat: Motor vehicle poses high risk of death/serious injury.
  • Immediacy: Once the vehicle moved, threat was imminent, giving the officer insufficient time for alternative actions ([05:00]).
  • Active resistance and use of a vehicle as a weapon justifies deadly force.

• Federal Law Enforcement Authority:

  • Under 18 U.S.C. 3052 and DOJ use of force policy: officers can use deadly force to defend themselves or others from imminent danger ([09:30]).
  • Glover critiques opinions suggesting the officer should have simply moved out of the way:
    • Quote:
      • “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.” ([17:45])

3. Media and Political Response

• Glover’s Criticism of Political Leaders:

  • He calls out Minneapolis officials, including the mayor, for inflammatory rhetoric—claiming they incited violence and demonized ICE, labeling the incident as "murder" before full facts were available ([11:00]).
  • Quote:
    • “They would do anything to divert attention away from the fraud and corruption that… for sure have been diverted to daycares and health care systems… even funneling that money… to Boko Haram in Africa.” ([13:00])
  • Highlights political narratives favoring optics and emotional reaction over facts and law.

• Manufactured Outrage Playbook:

  • Glover describes a step-by-step pattern:
    1. Remove context
    2. Dehumanize the officer
    3. Inflate emotion
    4. Demand consequences before facts
    5. Ignore contradictory facts ([22:45])
  • Quote:
    • “You don’t get to rewrite physics here. A two-ton vehicle moving at speed is not a misunderstanding… It’s a weapon. That’s pretty clear cut.” ([19:50])

4. Defense of Law Enforcement

• Professional Critique:

  • Glover asserts he’s critical of police when warranted, but firmly defends this officer’s actions.
  • Emphasizes officers are trained that vehicles are deadly weapons.
  • Quote:
    • “No one... is required to wait until they are crushed to prove they were in danger.” ([21:58])

• Public Perception Differences:

  • Notes that if a private citizen shot in similar circumstances, it would be seen as self-defense, but with ICE, it becomes political ([27:05]).
  • Criticizes expectations that law enforcement absorb lethal threats without reacting.

5. Societal and Policy Implications

• Impact on Law and Order:

  • Glover sees this event as indicative of broader trends undermining law enforcement’s ability to do their jobs.
  • Expresses concern for the safety of officers amid political grandstanding and lack of state support.
  • Calls out Minnesota’s pattern of being “ground zero” for outrage cycles, which he sees as damaging citizens’ security and reputation ([25:45]).

• Final Word:

  • Glover argues the insanity is in the reaction and narrative manipulation, not the officer’s response:
    • Quote:
      • “You don’t get to try to kill someone then claim victimhood when it fails… And the sooner we stop rewarding that lie, the better off everyone will be.” ([29:12])

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “When a law enforcement officer gives you a lawful order, you must abide.” ([02:00])
• “A vehicle is a deadly weapon. That’s full stop. Every law enforcement officer in America is trained on this.” ([15:45])
• “Radicals don’t argue law, they argue optics… It’s all about optics. They virtue signal the optics and why this matters.” ([26:22])
• “What’s insane is pretending a car isn’t a weapon… What’s insane is sacrificing truth to protect a false narrative.” ([28:30])

Important Timestamps

• [01:10] – Detailed incident breakdown (shooting sequence & justifications)
• [05:00] – Explanation of Graham v. Connor and objective reasonableness
• [09:30] – Legal standards for federal agents’ use of force
• [11:00] – Political rhetoric and response critique
• [15:45] – Vehicles as deadly weapons in law enforcement training
• [17:45] – Rebuttal to media claims the officer should have simply moved
• [19:50] – “Two-ton vehicle is a weapon” quote and context
• [21:58] – Expectation that officers must prove danger by being injured
• [22:45] – The “manufactured outrage” playbook
• [26:22] – Optics vs law in public discourse
• [28:30] – Final word on narrative manipulation
• [29:12] – “You don’t get to try to kill someone then claim victimhood…”

Tone and Language

Glover is passionate, direct, sometimes confrontational, and openly critical of political and media responses he views as dishonest or politicized. He uses clear, assertive language often punctuated with rhetorical questions and emphatic statements to drive home his perspective on law enforcement realities and legal standards.

This summary captures the episode’s structure, substance, most important arguments, and memorable moments, providing a comprehensive guide for those who haven't listened.