Minneapolis Mourns Mother Killed in ICE Shooting

0:00Get in the game with the college-branded Venmo Debit Card. Wreck your team with every tap and earn up to 5 % cash back with Venmo Stash, a new rewards program from Venmo. No monthly fee, no minimum balance. Just school pride and spending power. Get in the game and sign up for the Venmo Debit Card at Venmo.com slash college card. The Venmo MasterCard is issued by the Bancorp Bank N.A. Select schools available. Venmo Stash terms and exclusions apply at Venmo.me slash stash terms. Max$100 cash back per month. At Strayer University, we help students like you go from will I to why not. For over 130 years, we've been innovating higher education to make it more affordable, accessible, and attainable so you can reach your goals.

0:45Go from thinking, can I? To yes, I can. And keep striving. Visit Strayer.edu to learn more. Strayer University is certified to operate in Virginia by Shev and as many campuses, including at 2121 15th Street North in Arlington, Virginia. Welcome to The Beat. I'm Ari Melber. And as we end quite a week, I want to tell you we are going to be covering several things tonight. Important things and by the end of the hour, something uplifting. We have Trump hosting oil executives at the White House coming up later. We are going to look at these first days of one of the big Democratic wins, how the New York mayor, Zoran Mamdani, is beginning his tenure.

1:25So all of that is coming up. We begin with the new evidence in the ice shooting in Minneapolis. state officials asking the public to aid their probe. A vigil underway now, we can tell you, at the state capitol. That's in honor of Renee Nicole Good, an American citizen shot and killed by that ICE agent. There's new video of the incident coming out today, and it is of a different nature. It comes from the officer's point of view. It appears to be shot by a cell phone. The angle of the video does not indicate the three shots being fired, so it doesn't show that part on video. You will hear them. Note that this is also, like many of the videos in this story, difficult to watch, and there is profanity at the end.

2:25You want to come at us? You want to come at us? I said go get yourself some lunch, big boy. Go ahead. Get out of the car. Get out of the car. Get out of the car. Get out of the car. Get out of the car. After the shots are fired, then Good's car crashed, and you can hear around that time, as identified there, A voice saying, effing B, that is being uttered at a point where you've heard a shot at least, and Good would be dying or may already be dead. We don't have the autopsy report on that timing yet. The video from the officer doesn't show the actual shooting. You hear the shots. Other videos show that moment, including what is a wider angle that lets you see the interaction and what level of threat the officers may have faced from a legal perspective.

3:21This is from the New York Times. The SUV reverses, then turns right, apparently attempting to leave. At the same time, the agent filming crosses toward the left of the vehicle and grabs his gun. He opens fire on the motorist and continues shooting as she drives past. The moment the agent fires, he is standing here, to the left of the SUV, and the wheels are pointing to the right, away from the agent. This appears to conflict with allegations that the SUV was ramming or about to ram the officer. We can see the agent is not being run over. In fact, his feet are positioned away from the SUV. The officer's video does not indicate those moments before the shooting, I should say.

4:08It has a general atmosphere, though, of that kind of conflict and how quickly things escalated with the agents using force. You can see it was emotional, but there isn't a suggestion of domestic terrorism or a physical threat waged at the officer. Good is shown in the video saying, I'm not mad at you. Show your face. The general tenor, again, based on what we have, does not suggest a lethal threat or a planned attack or terrorism. The officer's video also shows him placing himself in front of the car, something that they are trained not to do, just as they're trained not to shoot at moving vehicles unless there is a gun or other lethal threat towards them.

4:47The footage is not clear on the path of the car as good drives away. Here's what the Times' analysis, what their reporting indicated. President Trump and others said the federal agent was hit by the SUV, often pointing to another video filmed from a different angle. And it's true that at this moment in this grainy low-resolution footage, it does look like the agent is being struck by the SUV. But when we synchronize it with the first clip, we can see the agent is not being run over. Again, that's something we've discussed. In many cases, including this one, you get as much evidence as possible.

5:26What you might appear to see on one video is not always the whole story, and the multiple footage shows us what we can understand. The evidence has one bullet passing through the windshield, which also indicates that the other two rounds would be fired from somewhere else, apparently from the left side into the driver's open window. These videos add to the evidence the public is considering at a time when there is great skepticism, as the federal government has made false statements repeatedly in the very first hours of gathering this information and raising questions about whether there will be independent, lawful review of this conduct.

6:07I'm joined by Andrew Weissman, former FBI general counsel, MSNOW analyst, and Michael Feinberg, a former assistant special agent in charge with the FBI, also an analyst for us. Andrew, this is such a difficult scenario and a tragedy before you get to the federal government making false statements about it. given your background, including at the FBI, where sometimes you were working with the FBI to either understand what happened or often on behalf of agents, they certainly get a benefit of the doubt from within the Bureau at first, but are still governed by federal law. What do you think we're learning now a couple of days into this?

6:45Sure. Well, with the caveat that, you know, obviously we still should await all of the evidence, but based on what we know now, And the other caveat is that when I was at the FBI, I would look at these sort of judgmental shooting situations and they were brought to me and others to examine it. I generally had a view that the FBI, like many, many people in law enforcement, have a very tough job and was sort of predisposed sort of on their side. I do have, with all of that, significant questions. I would be looking at a number of things. One, the agent here had his gun unholstered and drawn seemingly at a time when there was no need for that.

7:39But even, let's go further, even after the first shot, and let's assume the first shot is a Rorschach test where, you know, we see different people viewing it in different ways. I tend to see no reason here for that first shot. I'm very interested in Michael's view. But what I would focus on as a prosecutor is the second and third shot, which I don't see any basis for. Very often when you see multiple shots, it's because of the heat at the moment and a person is shooting very quickly because they fear for their lives and they're in danger and the other person they believe has a weapon. But here the car is leaving.

8:22And so I have a lot of questions about that second and third shot as sort of being, I don't see any reason for that at all, no justification. And then finally, I do think you get a sense of the mental state of the agent by the profanity he uses and a sort of real lack of training and respect. That is not how any sort of career person would be and should be handling a situation like this. And to me, something's off. I mean, it really tells you that there's a problem here in that there's this kind of language being used when that's not the role of somebody who is like Michael in law enforcement, who is trained and respectful of civilians and understands their role working for the public.

9:21Right. That's true for anyone in that job. And then ICE agents in particular are supposed to be doing immigration enforcement. And so, Michael, we'll get you to weigh in on all of this. I'll mention in coverage for the audience here, for viewers, if they come into a lethal situation, they have to deal with that. But day to day, daylight, middle of the street, addressing these individuals who were not apparently targets for deportation raises the question of why they were continuing and escalating the interaction. Now, we all know once they were apparently given conflicting orders. But if you ever hear an officer give you an order, your obligation usually is to try to follow it, not not to depart.

10:03But having said that, I want to put up on the screen the use of force policy. Michael, of course, is that firearms may not be discharged in a moving vehicle unless no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist. And that includes moving out of the path of the vehicle. I mean, that's pretty clear federally. Your view on all the above, Michael. So I apologize for doing this, but I do need to correct one thing about that slide. DOJ and DHS has slightly different use of force policies if you compare them line by line. and DOJ, in the wake of the George Floyd murder, changed its deadly force policy to be a bit more restrictive and added in the line about moving cars.

10:48That is not present in DHS's use of force policy. And I'll only, I'll just, just to pinpoint what you're saying, this is a DOJ slide. You're saying these agents under ICE were operating under the DHS guidance so that this is the right guidance, but that they would be only under DHS, which is broader, is what you're saying? No, no. What I'm saying is each department that has law enforcement entities has its own deadly force policy. They're all based on the same court case from decades ago called Graham v. Conner, which says that there has to be probable cause that the individual who is the subject of the deadly force poses an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to the agent involved or another human being.

11:40Now, all the deadly force policies add slight wrinkles to that. And DOJ has explicitly put more limitations in recent years on firing. Right. I don't want to lose just doing my job. I don't want to lose too much time on this. you're saying the DHS policy binding these officers is broader. Is that correct? Broader than the mortal limitation. Yes. Understood. All right. So go ahead and yeah. And so just keeping us moving, go ahead and apply that to the interaction here. Yeah. I mean, look, behind every deadly force policy is months of training and years of experience about de-escalating a situation whenever humanly possible.

12:27So you never really even have to get to the point where you make that split second decision to apply the policy. That doesn't happen at any point here. I've now seen four videos of the encounter and at every step leading up to the shooting and every step immediately after the shooting, the DHS officers, both the shooter and the other ones who are on the scene, seemingly intentionally escalate the situation and make it worse. And they do so in a way that tactically places them in more danger than they otherwise would be. Every officer there who speaks to the victim is dropping F-bombs. They are charging her vehicle and trying to open the door and demanding that she gets out, in spite of the fact that it's not clear whether she was even breaking any federal law whatsoever.

13:22I would argue she wasn't. and just the way they approach the vehicle. And let's slow down on that point. And then I do have a break, but both of you say you're making the point about whether they had the predicate in the first place because they are federal officers. If there's not a federal legal reason for them to stop or detain her, then she's not under arrest and she could be leaving, yes? Correct. Now, there's nuances within the Fourth Amendment is both of you and most of our audience knows. But in general, having a badge and a gun doesn't give you the right to just be a bully who randomly detains people because you don't like what they're saying or because they're observing you or because they're recording you.

14:12That's not how this works. Yeah, exactly. So we're going to continue on this. Andrew and Michael have agreed to stay. We have a short break. It's about 90 seconds. We turn to this investigation next.

14:52Copyright 2021, 2016 Thank you.

15:23Thank you.

15:59We are saddened by the tragedy that occurred yesterday in our Minneapolis community and the loss of Renee and Nicole Goode. Please join us in a moment of silence.

16:19Thank you. That was at the Minnesota Timberwolves game last night, a community mourning the death killing of Renee Good. State and local officials are asking the public to come forward with additional video evidence. We've seen multiple angles of video, the local DA discussing what we've been reporting on. And that is a big question about whether there will be a lawful independent probe into this, that the FBI is blocking those lawful local officials from the probe. I cannot overstate the importance of a local investigation or at least access to the federal investigation by the BCA. Without it, we will not have the ability to be transparent with our community.

17:04The FBI currently has, for example, Ms. Good's car, the shell casing, and witness interviews. The FBI has taken the car, and so any forensic analysis that comes from that would not be available to us. What the DA is saying carefully is they have the materials. So do you trust them to be honest about the forensics coming out of the car? What if those forensics, the bullet holes trajectory is negative for ICE? What if it makes it look worse in terms of how this person was shot? This is not conspiracy theory talk. This is the sitting DA, a very pro-law enforcement figure, questioning a federal government run by Trump where there's already been falsehoods from them about this tragic shooting.

17:50The mayor noting fact-finding is key. The fact that Pam Bondi's Department of Justice and this presidential administration has already come to a conclusion about those facts is deeply concerning. It is concerning, it is not normal, and it is a product of statements that didn't need to be made. You could be incredibly supportive of that ICE agent as a government official without lying. But they've taken a different tack. Take a look. They were attempting to push out their vehicle and a woman attacked them and those surrounding them and attempted to run them over and ram them with her vehicle. The moment the agent fires, he is standing here, to the left of the SUV, and the wheels are pointing to the right, away from the agent.

18:42She was trying to ram this guy with her car. He shot back. He defended himself. This appears to conflict with allegations that the SUV was ramming or about to ram the officer. We can see the agent is not being run over. In fact, his feet are positioned away from the SUV. We're back with our law enforcement experts, Andrew and Michael. Andrew, your thoughts on this aspect in the probe? So I cannot think of a legitimate reason that the federal probe would not include the state and locals here. the legitimate interest is to have maximum transparency, maximum accountability, and trust in the investigation.

19:31Only if you were sort of intending to have a whitewash of this, would you exclude those people. Here, I think the administration has lost all credibility when you put in context what the administration has done. You have scores of judges who have found that the administration has either lied to them, made misrepresentations, or not followed court orders. You have senior people up to and including the president and the vice president and the secretary already making conclusions about the investigation. That is ample reason to have other people be participating in the investigation because the public is entitled to confidence either way.

20:23whether it turns out that it was justified, whether it turns out that it was not justified. There's zero reason not to have sort of a maximum number of people involved with the expertise at the state and local and federal level doing this investigation. Yeah. Michael? So, yeah, you know, in the courtyard of the building where Andrew and I both used to work, there's a quote engraved on the wall by J. Edgar Hoover that essentially says the best tool against crime is the cooperation of federal and local authorities in combination with the trust of the American public. And this administration seems hellbent on burning those relationships to cinders had the fbi said from the beginning we're going to do this solo maybe maybe there could have been a legitimate argument as to why they were doing so or legitimate reasons we could try and articulate but the fact that they began cooperating and then when it was clear that the administration wanted to whitewash this a certain way, they withdrew that cooperation.

21:43It just doesn't pass the smell test. And anybody with a pulse in a single brain cell can see that. Andrew, what is the solution here? If the local authorities are obviously making this known, but the feds are in charge now, I guess. And if they say, oh, they clear the officer, or then what? I think there are a number of things. Obviously, Congress can have hearings. The state still can do an investigation. They may not have all of the evidence. They can try to get a court order to do an investigation. And then the other is, you know, there's statute of limitations on this. It doesn't run for quite some time.

22:29And if there are state charges, That's something that can happen a long way down the road. I know that's not a sort of short-term solution, but just remember the president of the United States, even if he were just to try to pardon somebody here, that doesn't work at the state level. So there are possibilities here. None of them are particularly fruitful. None of them are quick. None of them are particularly likely. And for the people, for the public and for the victim here, this really is an injustice that is being perpetrated, not just in what, just to be clear, not just what the officer did.

23:20It is how the administration is now handling what the officer did. And to me, those need to be paired so that this really is something to me, this is the kind of thing that I looked at when I was in government, which is you'd look at not just what somebody did, but sort of what the organization does in response to that. And to me, that is doubling down and making what appears to be an unjustified murder even worse. Yeah. Really important. I appreciate both of you and your expertise tonight. Thank you very much. I want to tell folks what's coming up. It is a Friday. We've dealt with some very serious matters, which are important.

24:06But we have other notes in the news cycle, including the one and only Jon Stewart. This is one of those times where you're really glad he's still out here doing his work and on the air. And we are going to show you a Trump takedown next from Mr. Stewart.

24:48The 2025 Jeep Grand Cherokee made for family adventures that matter. Jeep and a Jeep Griller register trademarks of FCA US LLC. If you're a parent and want to help set up your child for success, then IXL is a right for your family. As an effective and affordable online learning program, IXL covers math, language arts, science, and social studies using interactive practice problems for kids from pre-K to 12th grade. Listeners can get an exclusive 20 % off IXL membership when they sign up today at IXL.com slash 20. Visit ixl.com slash 20 to get the most effective learning program out there at the best price.

25:26Love college basketball? Gear up for another exciting season with a special offer from BetMGM. Sign into your BetMGM account and enjoy a college basketball odds boost token to snag even more winnings on your next bet. If you win your bet with your token activated, you'll score extra winnings. It's that simple. Log in now and enjoy our odds boost token to help you create another memorable season of college ball. Bet MGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. See BetMGM.com for terms, 21 plus only. This promotional offer is not available in Mississippi, New York, Ontario, or Puerto Rico. Gambling problem?

26:01Call 1-800-GAMBLER or 1-800-MY-RESET. For New York, call 877-8-HOPE-NY or text HOPE-NY-467369. For Massachusetts, 1-800-327-5050. For Iowa, 1-800-BETS-OFF. For Puerto Rico, 1-800-981-0023. Subject to eligibility requirements. In partnership with Kansas Crossing Casino and Hotel.

26:29We got serious stuff all over the place. Doesn't mean the only way to deal with it is 100 % serious or sober or even, you know, self-important. Jon Stewart is a master at deconstructing, debunking, and sometimes defenestrating all kinds of political figures in our midst. He's been doing it for a while. He has the energy that some might lack in this second Trump term. And remember how strong Jon Stewart was all the way back in the day on the Iraq War and the neocons. And we want to make sure you see what he's saying this week about Donald Trump's new war plans. And remember, the reason MAGA was so high on Donald Trump was that he was the guy who wasn't going to get involved with this kind of anymore.

27:15We do not seek war. We do not seek nation building. We do not seek regime change. And we don't want to be the world's policemen. We don't want to be. Those days are over now. No more American boots on the ground. We're not afraid of boots on the ground.

27:40No more rebuilding other countries' infrastructure. We have to rebuild their whole infrastructure.

27:51Well, it's not like we're going to be running someone else's country. We are going to run the country.

28:02There you have it. And one sign that Donald Trump is concerned about how all this is being covered in the real world of fact-based journalism is that for all the attacks and the fake news and the failing New York Times, he took time this week, having seen how this Venezuela stuff is playing, among other things, to give time a lengthy big interview to the New York Times, which pressed him on where his power could be limited, given the claims he's making abroad. Here's that exchange. Do you see any checks on your power on the world stage? Is there anything that could stop you if you wanted to? Yeah, there's one thing.