CONVERSATION ON THE THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR USE OF DEADLY FORCE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT.

SHANNON PRINCE IS AN ATTORNEY BASED IN ATLANTA WHO HAS FOLLOWED CASES NATIONWIDE.

SHE IS ONE OF MANY EXPERTS WE TALKED WITH FOLLOWING GEORGE FLOYD'S MURDER.

WELCOME BACK, THANKS FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>> Eric: AS IT APPLIES TO THIS CASE, ARE THE RULES ON DEADLY FORCE PRETTY CUT AND DRIED?

>> WELL, WHEN IT COMES O WHEN AN OFFICER CAN USE DEADLY FORCE, THE KEY THING IS THAT THERE MUST BE AN IMMINENT RISK OF SEVERE BODILY HARM OR DEATH, EITHER TO THE OFFICER OR TO SOMEONE ELSE.

AND WHEN WE'RE ASSESSING THE REASONABILITY OF THE OFFICER'S BELIEF THAT THERE WAS THAT RISK PRESENT, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT THROUGH THE LENS OF THE SUPREME COURT CASE FROM JUST LAST YEAR, BARNES V FELIX.

THAT CASE HELD THAT WHEN YOU'RE ASSESSING REASONABILITY AND THE PERCEPTION OF THE OFFICER, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT NOT JUST WHAT'S CALLED THE MOMENT OF THREAT, BUT WHAT THE COURT TERMS "THE TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES."

HOW AN INTERACTION BEGAN, WHAT THE SUSPECT DID, WHAT THE POLICE OFFICER DID, INCLUDING IF HE ESCALATED THE SITUATION.

AND THAT BECOMES VERY INTERESTING WHEN WE THINK OF SOME COMMENTS THAT VICE PRESIDENT VANCE HAS MADE.

HE SAID, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT IN THIS ITUATION, THIS PARTICULAR OFFICER HAD BEEN RAMMED BY A CAR IN THE LINE OF DUTY SIX MONTHS AGO, THAT HE MAY HAVE SENSITIVITIES TO THE RISKS POSED BY VEHICLES, BUT EVEN UNDER THE EXPANDED GAZE OF BARNES V FELIX, WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO EXPAND OUR GAZE SO FAR THAT WE JUDGE WHETHER AN OFFICER'S PERCEPTION OF REASONABILITY IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT HE EXPERIENCED SIX MONTHS AGO, IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT HE ALLEGEDLY SUFFERED AT THE HANDS OF A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DRIVER.

ALSO, REASONABILITY IS AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD.

SO IF VICE PRESIDENT VANCE IS SUGGESTING THAT THIS WAS A TRAUMATIZED OFFICER RATHER THAN A REASONABLE OFFICER, THAT THIS OFFICER'S ACTIONS WERE ANIMATED BY A UNIQUE SENSITIVITY TO THE RISK OF CARS, HE'S NOT HELPING HIS CASE.

>> Cathy: SO, I WONDER HERE, IS THERE -- ARE YOU SAYING THAT THERE IS A CERTAIN LEVEL OF IMMUNITY WHEN IT COMES TO EXCESSIVE FORCE SUITS FOR I.C.E.

AGENTS?

WHAT WOULD THAT BE?

>> SO, IT'S DISTURBING THAT VICE PRESIDENT VANCE, HIMSELF A LAWYER, HAS SUGGESTED THAT FEDERAL AGENTS WORKING IN THE CONTEXT OF FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, LIKE AN I.C.E.

AGENT, HAVE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.

THAT'S NOT CORRECT.

THAT'S NOT HOW OUR DEMOCRACY WORKS.

BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL PROSECUTORS CAN BRING CHARGES IN THIS CONTEXT.

STATE PROSECUTORS COULD BRING CHARGES LIKE MANSLAUGHTER IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, TO BE FREE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE.

HOWEVER, IF A STATE PROSECUTOR WERE TO BRING SUCH CHARGES, IT'S LIKELY THAT AN I.C.E.

AGENT, AS A FEDERAL OFFICER, WOULD MOVE TO HAVE THE CASE BROUGHT O FEDERAL COURT WHERE THEY COULD INVOKE THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE IMMUNITY.

BUT THE THING ABOUT SUPREMACY CLAUSE IMMUNITY IS, IT'S NOT AUTOMATIC.

YOU HAVE TO MEET TWO CRITERIA.

THE FIRST IS THAT YOU COMMITTED THE ACTION IN THE COURSE OF YOUR JOB.

THAT'S EASY.

BUT THE SECOND CRITERIA IS THAT YOUR ACTIONS WERE REASONABLE.

AND THAT IS SUBJECT TO DEBATE.

WHERE THE FACTS ARE IN CONFLICT AS TO THE REASONABILITY OF AN ACTION, IT MAY BE THAT A PROSECUTION IS ALLOWED TO GO FORWARD.

ALSO, FEDERAL PROSECUTORS COULD BRING A CHARGE OF DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW.

NOW, THAT'S A HARD CHARGE TO GET A CONVICTION ON BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT SOMEONE WOEFULLY -- WILLFULLY DEPRIVED ANOTHER PERSON OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

AND IN THIS CASE, THE OFFICER COULD SAY THAT HE DIDN'T SEEK TO WILLFULLY DEPRIVE >> Mary: GOOD OF HER -- >> Mary: GOOD OF HER RIGHT TO BE FREE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE, THAT HIS ONLY GOAL WAS TO DEFEND HIS OWN LIFE.

>> Eric: GO AHEAD, FINISH UP.

>> OH, SURE.

SO IT'S ALSO POSSIBLE FOR THE FAMILY TO SEEK JUSTICE IN CIVIL COURT BY BRINGING A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE OFFICER.

BUT IT'S LIKELY THAT THE OFFICER WOULD BE SHELTERED BY QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, WHICH HOLDS THAT IF THERE'S NOT A PREVIOUS CASE IN WHICH AN OFFICER WAS FOUND LIABLE UNDER ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME FACTS THAT OFFICER WOULD BE PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.

SO IT'S DIFFICULT TO GET A VERDICT AGAINST A FEDERAL OFFICER, BUT BY NO MEANS DO THEY HAVE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.

>> Eric: UNLIKE THE GEORGE FLOYD CASE, THIS HAS MULTIPLE MULTIPLE VIDEO STREAMS FROM CELL PHONE CAMERAS.

I WONDER HOW THAT'S GOING TO PLAY INTO WHATEVER HAPPENS NEXT.

>> WHEN WE ASSESS THE REASONABILITY OF AN OFFICER'S ACTIONS, WE AREN'T ASKING THEM TO ACT FROM THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT.

SO IT CAN BE TEMPTING TO LOOK AT ALL THE CAMERAS WE HAVE NOW AND TO THINK, WELL, IF THE OFFICER SAW THIS, IF THE OFFICER SAW THAT, HE WOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY.

BUT THAT OFFICER IN THE MOMENT WASN'T LOOKING AT THE SCENE FROM MULTIPLE ANGLES.

WE CAN HEAR NOW MISS GOOD'S MOTHER SAY THAT SHE AS NOT A PROTESTER OR MISS GOOD'S WIFE SAY THAT SHE WAS AT THE SCENE AS A LEGAL OBSERVER.

EVEN IF EITHER OF THOSE THINGS TURN OUT TO BE TRUE, ARGUABLY, IT SHOULDN'T MATTER BECAUSE IT'S NOT RELATED TO THE INFORMATION THAT THE OFFICER HAD AT THE TIME.

SO WHAT THIS OFFICER IS GOING TO BE JUDGED ON IS NOT HOW HE WOULD HAVE ACTED IF HE HAD THE BENEFIT OF THE KNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE AFTER THE FACT, IT'S WHETHER HE ACTED IN A AY THAT COMPORTED WITH HIS TRAINING.

>> Cathy: THANK YOU.

I HAVE A QUESTION, AND IT'S IN REFERENCE TO THE INVESTIGATION.

I BELIEVE THAT SECRETARY NOEM HAD SAID THAT -- OF COURSE, AS YOU KNOW -- THE BCA HAS BEEN SHUT OUT OF THE INVESTIGATION, THE FBI IS TAKING IT ON, AND I THINK SECRETARY NOEM HAS SAID THAT THE STATE DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION.

BUT RICHARD PAYNTER, U OF M PROFESSOR, FORMER ETHICS EXPERT IN THE WHITE HOUSE, SAID THAT THERE IS NO FEDERAL STATUTE OR OTHER LEGAL PRINCIPLE THAT BARS MINNESOTA, THE STATE, FROM INVESTIGATING.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

BOTH THE STATE AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE.

BOTH THE STATE AND FEDERAL PROSECUTORS CAN BRING CHARGES, BUT THE WAY PROSECUTORS DETERMINE IF CHARGES ARE TO BE BROUGHT IS BY REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE.

SO EVEN THOUGH THE FBI HAS CUT THE STATE OUT OF ITS INVESTIGATION, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE STATE CAN'T BRING AN INVESTIGATION OF ITS OWN.

NOW, THAT INVESTIGATION WILL BE HINDERED BY THE FACT THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, EVIDENCE FROM THE SCENE, LIKE MISS GOOD'S CAR, THE SHELL CASINGS, ARE IN POSSESSION OF THE FBI, AND THOSE THINGS NEED TO BE SUBJECTED TO FORENSIC ANALYSIS.

BUT HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY MARY MORIARTY AND STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL KEITH ELLISON HAVE INVITED THE PUBLIC TO COME FORWARD WITH EVIDENCE IN ITS CUSTODY, FOR EXAMPLE, ANY FURTHER CELL PHONE CAMERA VIDEOS, AND SUBMIT IT DIRECTLY TO THE STATE.

AND THEY SAY THAT IF THE STATE CAN LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE IN ITS POSSESSION AND GET ENOUGH CLARITY ON WHETHER OR NOT TO BRING CHARGES, IT WILL PROCEED ACCORDINGLY.

>> Cathy: ALL RIGHT.

>> Eric: SHANNON PRINCE, THANKS SO MUCH FOR YOUR EXPERTISE, REALLY APPRECIATE YOU STOPPING BY.

>> Cathy: WE'LL HAVE YOU BACK.

THANK YOU.

>> Eric: THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> Eric: ON FRIDAY MORNING, STATE AND FEDERAL OFFICIALS CALLED ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO WORK WITH MINNESOTA' BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION IN THE INVESTIGATION OF THE DEADLY SHOOTING.

>> IF IT'S NOT A PROBLEM TO HAVE ADDITIONAL PEOPLE AT THE TABLE THAT HAVE TRANSPARENCY INTO THE PROCESS AND HAVE RUN THESE INVESTIGATIONS BEFORE, THEN WHY NOT INCLUDE THEM IN THE PROCESS?

THE BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION AT THE STATE OF MINNESOTA HAS CONSISTENTLY RUN THESE INVESTIGATIONS BEFORE.

>> MY HEART IS GRIEVING FOR RENEE AND HER FAMILY.

THIS IS AN UNIMAGINABLE AND PREVENTABLE LOSS.

I HONOR RENEE'S HUMANITY AND LIFE, AND I ACKNOWLEDGE THE DEEP PAIN FELT BY HER LOVED ONES AND NEIGHBORS.

THE TAXPAYER-FUNDED ACTIONS AND HARM WE ARE EXPERIENCING RIGHT NOW ARE INHUMANE, UNLAWFUL, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

>> SHE WAS A MOTHER, A WIFE, AND A BELOVED COMMUNITY MEMBER, NOT A DOMESTIC TERRORIST.

I'M CALLING ON TRUMP'S BI TO ALLOW THE MINNESOTA BCA TO HAVE ACCESS TO ALL THE INFORMATION SO THAT AN INDEPENDENT INV