>> WITH THE FATAL SHOOTING OF 37-YEAR-OLD MINNEAPOLIS RESIDENT ALEX PRETTI BY BORDER PATROL AGENTS LAST SATURDAY MORNING.

IT'S THE SECOND TIME THIS MONTH FEDERAL AGENTS AVE SHOT AND KILLED A MINNEAPOLIS RESIDENT LEADING TO MORE CALLS FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE FOR A PAUSE OR REDUCTION IN THE IMMIGRATION CRACKDOWN IN THE STATE.

SHANNON PRINCE JOINS US RIGHT NOW.

SHE'S AN ATTORNEY BASED IN HOUSTON AND A NATIONAL EXPERT ON USE OF FORCE.

WELCOME BACK.

THANKS FOR BEING HERE.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>> WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THE USE OF FORCE IN A MOMENT HERE.

I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE TWO REPORTERS WHO WERE ARRESTED TODAY ON FEDERAL CHARGES, DON LEMON FROM L.A.

AND GEORGIA FORT HERE, INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST BASED IN THE TWIN CITIES.

THEY WERE ARRESTED FOR THEIR ROLE IN COVERING THAT ST.

PAUL CHURCH PROTESTS.

AND THEY SEEM TO BE LUMPED WITH PROTESTERS ARRESTED EARLIER.

WHAT KIND OF A RED LINE HAS BEEN CROSSED BY THEIR ARRESTS >> WELL, THESE JOURNALISTS WERE CHARGED WITH VIOLATING THE F.A.C.E.

ACT AND CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIOTS.

THE F.A.C.E.

ACT PREVENTS VIOLENCE, INTIMIDATION, OBSTRUCTION FOR SOMEONE TRYING TO RECEIVE ABORTION OR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES OR RELIGIOUS WORSHIP.

NOW, THESE TWO JOURNALISTS DON'T APPEAR TO BE OING ANY OF THOSE THINGS, PHYSICAL FORCE OR THREATS OR DAMAGING PROPERTY.

SO IT APPEARS THE CASE AGAINST THEM IS NOT VERY STRONG.

WITH REGARD TO CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS THAT'S WHEN TWO OR MORE PEOPLE COME TOGETHER TO THWART OTHER PEOPLE IN EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT, IN THIS CASE IT WOULD BE THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN RELIGIOUS WORSHIP FREELY.

THAT THWARTING HAPPENS WHEN THE BEHAVIORS ARE INTIMIDATION, THREATENING, OPPRESSION OR INJURING.

I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S AN ARGUMENT THAT THESE REPORTERS WERE INJURING ANYONE, OR EVEN THREATENING ANYONE.

BUT IT COULD BE ARGUED AS A STRETCH THAT MAYBE IT'S OPPRESSIVE TO HAVE YOUR RELIGIOUS WORSHIP INTERRUPTED EVEN BY PEOPLE INTERRUPTING THE SERVICES TO PRACTICE JOURNALISM OR THAT IT'S INTIMIDATING TO HAVE SOMEONE BROADCAST YOUR RELIGIOUS PLACE OF WORSHIP WHEN YOU ARE BEING ASSOCIATED WITH THE CHURCH STIGMATIZED FOR BEING FFILIATED WITH A LEADER OF I.C.E.

I DO THINK THESE JOURNALISTS HAVE A STRONG CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSE THAT THEY WERE JUST CARRYING OUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PRACTICE FREEDOM OF PRESS.

HOWEVER IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT A CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSE IS NOT A SHIELD AGAINST GETTING ARRESTED.

SO I CAN'T SAY THAT A RED LINE HAS BEEN CROSSED BUT I DO THINK THAT THESE ARE WEAK CASES AND IT WAS UNWISE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO BRING THEM.

>> Eric: THERE'S SO MUCH TO TALK ABOUT.

Mr.

PRETTI'S DEATH IS UNDER A CIVIL RIGHTS INVESTIGATION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL BUT RENEE GOOD'S ASE IS NOT COMING UNDER INVESTIGATION.

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE OF THE TWO EPISODES HERE?

>> WELL, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE MADE AN INTERESTING STATEMENT, AND THAT'S THAT THEY WERE NOT JUST GOING TO INVESTIGATE THE INCIDENT IN WHICH Mr.

PRETTI WAS KILLED, BUT ALSO THE PREVIOUS DAYS AND WEEKS.

THAT COULD SUGGEST THAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR A PATTERN OF CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, BUT IT ALSO COULD SUGGEST THAT THEY PLAN TO LOOK AT Mr.

PRETTI'S EARLIER INCIDENT IN WHICH HE RAN AT I.C.E.

AGENTS, SHOUTED AT THEM, SPAT AT THEM AND KICKED OUT THE TAILLIGHT OF AN I.C.E.

VEHICLE.

AND THAT COULD BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHY Mr.

PRETTI'S CASE IS BEING INVESTIGATED AND Ms.

GOOD'S IS NOT.

IT COULD BE THE DOJ DOESN'T WANT TO INVESTIGATE Ms.

GOOD'S CASE BECAUSE THEY FEEL THAT IF THEY LOOK AT THE WEEKS AND DAYS PRIOR TO HER KILLING THEY WON'T FIND A SIMILAR INCIDENT THAT MAKES HER LOOK BAD.

>> Cathy: I MENTIONED YOU ARE NATIONALLY KNOWN USE OF FORCE EXPERT AND I KNOW YOU'VE SEEN ALL THE VIDEOS AND THERE'S SO MUCH IN THE WAY OF BEING RECORDED SINCE DECEMBER.

WHEN YOU SEE THE VIDEOS OF SOME OF THE ARRESTS, SOME OF THE BEHAVIOR ON THE PART OF I.C.E.

AGENTS AND PROTESTERS AND OF COURSE THEN THE KILLINGS, WHAT ARE YOU SEEING, AS AN EXPERT?

>> WELL, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN I LOOK AT THE PRETTI CASE I'M SEEING A NUMBER OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND FEDERAL ISSUES.

SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THE INCIDENT IN WHICH HE WAS KILLED, WE SEE HIM FILMING THE POLICE, THAT IS PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

WE SEE THAT HE IS ARMED WITH A GUN THAT WE KNOW HE WAS LICENSED TO CARRY.

THAT'S EXERCISE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

AND EXERCISE OF EITHER OF THOSE RIGHTS DOES NOT JUSTIFY USE OF DEADLY FORCE, EVEN IF THOSE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE EXERCISED IN THE CONTEXT OF AN I.C.E.

PROTEST.

NOW, IF WE LOOK AT THE PREVIOUS INCIDENT IN WHICH Mr.

PRETTI INTERACTED WITH I.C.E.

AGENTS AND WE SEE HIM RUNNING AS OFFICERS, RUNNING AT THEM, SHOUTING AT THEM, SPITTING AT THEM AND KICKING OUT THE TAILLIGHT, ARGUABLY IF THOSE OFFICERS WERE CONDUCTING ARREST, AND HE WAS INTERFERING WITH THE ARREST AND IT COULD BE SAID THAT HE WAS ATTACKING AN OFFICER, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT EVEN AS A U.S.

CITIZEN I.C.E.

COULD HAVE MADE A LEGAL ARREST OF HIM.

HOWEVER, EVEN THAT INCIDENT WOULDN'T JUSTIFY DEADLY FORCE BECAUSE ALTHOUGH IN THAT VIDEO Mr.

PRETTI APPEARS TO BE ARMED, YOU CAN'T USE DEADLY FORCE SIMPLY BECAUSE SOMEBODY IS ARMED AND ANGRY AND MAY BECOME DANGEROUS IF AN INCIDENT CONTINUES TO UNFOLD, YOU CAN ONLY USE IT IF THE THREAT IS IMMINENT.

WHEN WE LOOK AT Mr.

PRETTI KICKING OUT THE TAILLIGHT WHEN YOU DAMAGE FEDERAL PROPERTY WHILE ARMED THAT IS A FELONY, BUT THAT'S DAMAGE TO PROPERTY, NOT THREAT TO SEVERE BODILY HARM OR DEATH SO IT DOESN'T JUSTIFY DEADLY FORCE.

>>