ICE's Shooting of Minnesota Protester 'A Legitimate Use of Deadly Force': Former Federal Prosecutor

And the Trump administration today responding to that ICE shooting uh of the protester there in Minnesota. Joining me now to assess the latest is Jim Trusty, former federal prosecutor. Jim, great to have you with us tonight. Um >> Homeland Security Hey Jim. So Homeland Security Secretary Christy Gnome responded uh to that ICE shooting in Minnesota. Let's have a quick look. These individuals had followed our officers all day, had harassed them, had blocked them in. They were impeding our law enforcement operations, which is against the law. And when they demanded and commanded her to get out of her vehicle several times, she did not. This was an act of domestic terrorism. >> Jim, you were once a federal prosecutor. You understand this uh very well. What is the legal standard for an ICE agent's use of deadly force as it applies here? Yeah, generally what you're looking for is a reasonable standard, an objective standard that he employed deadly force because of a reasonable apprehension of imminent substantial harm or death. Bunch of legal language, but it basically means you look at it objectively. You try to figure out is the use of deadly force proportional to the threat. And I would say in in most instances a motor vehicle heading straight towards and I guess even brushing the leg in this case uh of the agent probably meets that criteria. But you know the way to do this is not with all sorts of um early shrieking and decisions made from a political perspective. but to have actual professionals look at the tape, interview witnesses, you know, assess the credibility of witnesses because I've already heard stories of witnesses kind of changing their account of how this went down. Uh, and making that call, you know, and having use of force experts as part of the process. And, uh, real quick, Stephen, I would point back to the, um, Brianna Randolph, I believe her name was, a young woman as a paramedic in Kentucky that was killed dur during the execution of a search warrant. And there was such transparency in the law enforcement side. That's what they need to mimic. You know, they had the state attorney general come out and spend an hour at a press conference explaining everything that happened in front of the grand jury, why the grand jury indicted for only a misdemeanor. Uh, and then they had a force, a use of force expert take questions for another hour. And to me, that was very good for the system compared to kind of knee-jerk reactions by either side. >> And it is sort of concerning, Jim. uh as we see the B-roll of it playing, there's actually two angles. One of the angles that has sort of the back and and the officer who was hit is is covered from most of it is the one that uh a lot of the media that JD Vance, vice president, was pointing out in that press briefing is they're seeing versus the one we're seeing on the screen now that's a little bit grainy but a lot more clear as to what uh is it may be happening there. So, do do you think based on looking at not this one, but the other one, uh, that that the driver, Rachel Good, um, crossed the line from normal protest, I don't know if she's, you know, even protesting in her car. Uh, she's being told to to to get out, uh, to unlawful obstruction of law enforcement and also posing a uh a deadly threat to that officer. >> Yeah. I mean, look, you reserve judgment a little bit. I mean, I'd want to really understand the exact training uh that the ICE agents get and and have kind of a baseline knowledge of that. But look, you know, she's got an ICE agent literally hanging on her door trying to make her stop. And she backs up apparently in a in a way where she's going to get an angle to get out and then is when the agent pulls his firearm, she is at that moment driving straight towards him and his firearm. And you know, I think there's a little bit of an unrealistic expectation. Maybe it's from movies. Maybe it's from from not being exposed to law enforcement uh regularly like I have been for 35 years. But, you know, people don't move like chess pieces. You can't sit there and apply hindsight and say, "Well, she was probably going to try to turn and get away from him." At the time, he had to make the decision with very little time to spare. he has a a very large vehicle bearing down directly at him. And so, you know, my inclination is try to strip away all of the politics of the moment, the politicians taking completely irresponsible positions of of cussing and announcing that ICE is involved in murder or assassination. You know, strip all that away to the mechanics of the moment from a law enforcement perspective, and I think it may well end up being a legitimate use of deadly force by this agent. Another point, Jim, is you see uh a lot of these ICE operations uh whether it be in Illinois or uh here in Minnesota, a lot of these protesters, they get right in the business of these ICE agents while they're carrying out these very serious and dangerous raids. And you wonder what message does it send if somebody were to get away with um you know bar nearly running over an ICE agent uh in the middle of an operation. With that said, I do want to move on here to another point. Uh the Secretary of Homeland Security Christine Gnome also announcing an ICE operation uh operations in New York City. This to take down the Dominican gang uh Trinitarios. Uh so far 54 people arrested, most facing criminal charges. How much of the public debate around ICE, Jim, do you think is driven by narrative and framing versus the actual outcomes of operations like the one here in New York City? >> Yeah. I mean, the question kind of answers itself. If if you talked to the people that lived in those neighborhoods, whichever burrow we're talking about, you know, if you talked to the Dominicans that lived there and said, "Are you glad ICE came in and pulled out these gang members?" You you'd have celebration on the street. I mean, there's a lot of people that live in the shadow of violence that immigration enforcement is helping diminish. And so, uh, yeah, I think you have to look to kind I'm not a huge fan of just like a body count as the only metric, but look, if they're taking gang members off the street and they have legitimate immigration bases for removal or for prosecution, you know, only the hard left would say there's something wrong with that. I think most people, particularly those that have lived in these cities, would say it's a good moment. And you know, it saves lives. It's kind of hard to prove the negative, but when you take people out from violent gangs, and I was a federal gang prosecutor for a good number of years, you know, you are literally saving lives by taking those types of actions. And and by the way, you know, there's an easy cheat sheet here, which is if you're not dealing with politicized sanctuary cities and the authorities share the jail list that they make every day of the week to show who's been brought in and what their immigration status is. That's a huge part of the ICE immigration enforcement. It's not rounding up people and taking enforcement action on the street as much as it is getting the jail list, going to the jail, confirming this is an illegal alien, and making your move. So that's an easy way to uh make the streets of America a lot safer, I think. >> Jim, also in New York City, obviously now, former Venezuelan uh dictator Nicholas Maduro awaiting trial. Speaking of gangs and cartels, uh on this on narco terrorism charges, we're hearing this term narco terrorism. It's brought up uh in discussions. It's the basis of his arrest. uh what does that term actually mean in a legal sense and how is it going to be applied in this case? >> Yeah, I mean it's a little bit like a baby RICO. You know, RICO uh charges, racketeering charges are designed to address both the hierarchy within an organization, you know, different level people that may not leave their fingerprints at a crime scene, but also different objectives and different conspiracies. In other words, like if you take a mafia case, you're talking about lone sharks and sports betting and, you know, violent robberies. Well, here this 25page indictment out of New York is a fascinating read and it's it's all about multiple actions both on the narcotic side and the kind of terrorism side. So if you read the indictment, there's a marriage of convenience between the highest levels of the Venezuelan government, Maduro, his wife, and his son, high level officials there, ministers within his inner circle, and then groups such as Trend Aragua, the notorious Venezuelan gang, FARC, the paramilitary Colombian terrorist organization, ELN, another one of the same, and even mentions of the Sinaloa cartel and the Zeta. So you've got like a who's who or a rogues gallery of people that are on the narcotic side as well as on the terrorism side and they uh and they traffic their wares with the assistance according to this indictment of Maduro and his family to the point of giving diplomatic immunity, diplomatic uh visas to individuals who were going to get engaged in drug trafficking internationally so they wouldn't get stopped by authorities. So it's a great read. Now, proving it up is a different thing than indicting, but the indictment itself really speaks to both narcotics importation or exportation from Venezuela and terrorism, marriages of convenience. >> Jim, where do you ultimately see this case going? Um, from what I understand, there's an elderly judge in his 90s. Um, he's he's sort of uh kind of been uh not put on leave, but but his his um time commitment on the bench has been reduced. Um, do what do you know about the judge and where is this case going? >> Yeah. Well, uh, the I've heard good things about the judge in general. I mean, yes, he's 93 and that's a little bit scary. And frankly, trial's not going to happen real soon. There's, you know, one of the elements you have multiple defendants. That's part of it. But you also have uh, undoubtedly sensitive and classified information that plays into this case. And so that process of sifting through that to figure out how it's used in a public trial generally adds months to the process, sometimes even a year. So I don't know that we're seeing any sort of trial until at least 2027. And our judges, you know, getting a little bit older as that happens. But look, there there'll be a flurry of motions that relate to his capture. And that's just like Noriega. That didn't really go anywhere in New York for Noriega. there's probably better facts overall to support the actions of the military and law enforcement here. And once those are resolved in favor of the government, like I think they will be, then you're just talking about a typical federal trial. Uh it'll have some spectacular witnesses. Maybe there's people from the Venezuelan government, from FARC, from Sinaloa, who knows? Uh but at the end of the day, it's it's like the types of federal trials that happen across the country. You just have to get through that initial kind of international flavor before it taxs a more normal course. former federal prosecutor Jim Trusty. As always, appreciate your insights.