Legal Breakdown of the ICE Minnesota Shooting

Season 6, Episode 2: Legal Breakdown of the ICE Minnesota Shooting

In this episode, Karen Koehler, Mo Hamoudi, and Mike Todd examine the January 7, 2026, fatal ICE shooting in Minnesota that resulted in the death of Renee Nicole Good. They discuss what is visible on video, the sequence of events, and the legal standards that apply when deadly force is used.

The conversation focuses on Fourth Amendment law, qualified immunity, and the divide between criminal prosecution and civil accountability. They also address why criminal charges are often unlikely in cases involving law enforcement shootings, and why civil litigation may be the only remaining path for a family seeking answers

🎧 Stay Connected with The Velvet Hammer™ Podcast

Hosted by Karen Koehler and Mo Hamoudi, trial lawyers at Stritmatter Law, a nationally recognized plaintiff personal injury and civil rights law firm based in Washington State. 

Produced by Mike Todd, Audio & Video Engineer, and Kassie Slugić, Executive Producer. 

Watch full episodes on YouTube
Follow us on Instagram, TikTok & Facebook
📬 Questions or topic ideas? Email us at thevelvethammerpodcast@stritmatter.com

 🔥 New episodes every Wednesday
Subscribe for bold takes, heartfelt moments, and the unfiltered reality of what it means to live and lead as a trial lawyer at Stritmatter Law. 

Transcript

Why We Watch The Hard Videos

Karen Koehler 0:06

All right, we have a show for you today. This is a legal discussion. Politics might be a little involved, but our goal is to really break down the legal issues surrounding a high profile ice shooting in Minnesota.

Mike Todd 0:30

Yeah, Minnesota. Minneapolis, I believe.

Karen Koehler 0:33

I get the minis always confused. Yeah. But it happened last week. I didn't want to watch it, but I wanted also to know what happened, and so I did watch it. And let me just stop there. So we get many cases involving bad things that happen to people that results in their death.

Mike Todd 0:53

We actually had a case that involved a shooting.

Karen Koehler 0:55

Well, many.

Mike Todd 0:56

Yeah.

What Happened To Renee Good

Karen Koehler 0:57

And so as lawyers, first of all, we have to look at it. Um I've asked family members not to look at those things, but sometimes they just can't help themselves. Once you see it, you can never unsee it. And so like Kristen and I have talked about the fact that we walk around having seen all of that. And we put it away or compartmentalized to put enough away. But if you bring that down to revisit it, it's overwhelming. I can see, I can go back decades in my career and see the incidents. I can replay them. I can tell you graphically where things were. And so it's kind of like almost like we are um medical examiners in that regard, right? We're we're watching it not for self-gratification or because we want to, uh, or even because we're scared to. We watch it in our case because it's part of our job. Because we have to. Yes. That's our job. So when I decided whether to watch this shooting, I didn't want to as a person. I didn't feel I had to. And yet I felt that as a citizen, that it probably, I probably and that because there would be a lot of discourse, I probably should. But even then I didn't want to. What dropped me over the line was that as a lawyer, I knew that people would be asking me, yeah, was this a justified shooting? Why are if it's a justified, if it's not a justified shooting, why isn't prosecution being accomplished? Will this be a and was this murder? Was it self-defense? Was it something in between? What was it? And should there be a result of any kind of prosecution or civil action or anything as a result? So those are the questions that went through my mind when I watched it, and those are the questions that we're gonna be talking about today. So, Mo, you're gonna start us off by talking about the incident.

Mo Hamoudi 3:09

Okay, this is the basic sequence of the facts. Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old Minneapolis resident, was fatally shot by an immigration and customs enforcement agent during a Department of Homeland Security operation in Minneapolis during the day. The shooting occurred while Miss Good was in her SUV near an ICE arrest scene where she was reportedly observing and protesting the operation. So there's video and the video shows ice agents surrounding her vehicle shouting commands. And then Miss Good's SUV begins to move as an agent is situated right outside the driver's side. And the video shows that the vehicle strikes the agent. The vehicle is turning. Yes, let me let me finish. Strikes the agent as the vehicle is turning right, trying to move away from the agents, and at that point the agent fired three shots through the window.

Karen Koehler 4:25

You're supposed to be giving us facts.

Mo Hamoudi 4:27

These are the facts.

Karen Koehler 4:28

You said that it was she was turning right, trying to get away. Where where did that fact come from?

Mo Hamoudi 4:33

You can see in the video that she's turning the steering wheel right away from the agents and trying to move away from them. Because there's nobody else to the right. It's just going out. She's not going towards another person. But how does the car hit the agent? Because the agent is situated to the left corner of the vehicle, and as the car is turning right, it it doesn't hit him like significantly, but it bumps him. And then what happens is that the agent then pulls out, has a firearm out, and he discharges three rounds through the windshield at close range.

Karen Koehler 5:05

So did her vehicle actually touch the agent?

Mo Hamoudi 5:08

Yes. And then it it sh it shot through and and it shot her. Um they were headshots. And so she the car continues to move, comes to arrest, the airbag has deployed, and she dies at the scene.

Karen Koehler 5:25

And is aid rendered?

Mo Hamoudi 5:27

Um, I don't know.

Karen Koehler 5:28

I don't I didn't see that in the answer is that there was a medical doctor on the scene who asked to access the victim and was told no.

Mo Hamoudi 5:37

Okay. But this is based on the video I observed of like what you can see happening actually on the video.

Karen Koehler 5:44

All right.

Mike Todd 5:45

And I wanted to ask too, since I haven't seen what sounds like the video you watched, is the officer the officer's on the ground, pulls his gun, and then shoots, or is does he have his gun out when he gets hit? He has his gun out. Okay. And so there are two videos. Yeah, I've seen the video that was from his uh personal the camp. Yeah. But uh, I haven't seen any of the other videos that weren't from his perspective.

Mo Hamoudi 6:13

There is another video that is away from him looking towards him. Okay. And then there's his video.

Mike Todd 6:19

Yeah, because I could see that he was falling back. Yeah. And uh and you can hear the gunshots, but you can't see the gun in that video. And I I once he was down, then it you can't really see anything. Yeah. Or at least it looks like he did from my from his perspective. Because the camera shoots you straight up for a little bit.

Guns Drawn And Use-Of-Force Training

Mo Hamoudi 6:38

Yeah, you clearly see that the car contacted the officer.

Karen Koehler 6:41

Okay.

Mo Hamoudi 6:42

Um, so can you see?

Mike Todd 6:43

I know that I've read that people said that he had his foot run over.

Mo Hamoudi 6:49

Can you see if the vehicle ran over his foot? Based on my view of the video, I can't see his foot got run over, but I see the vehicle. But you can see that it hit him and he bounced off. Yeah. Objectively, that the car came into contact with the officer.

Karen Koehler 7:02

Did the officer was he stationary the whole time? Did he move towards the car? Why did the car come into contact with the officer?

Mo Hamoudi 7:11

Well, the car came into contact with the officer because the the two reasons. One, the officer was situated in front of the car, and two, the car proceeded to contact the officer. So that there was he took a position in front of the car, and they had they had directed a command for them to get out of the car. And uh and and they did not comply with the command. The passenger in the vehicle was outside and protesting and videoing. And gave commands. Yeah. Passenger gets into the car, gives commands to the driver to drive the vehicle. The officer is giving commands to get out of the vehicle, and so then the commands are not followed. The vehicle drives away, bumps into the officer, and the officer then decides to use deadly force.

Karen Koehler 8:01

Okay, so let's start. I have some legal questions now. Okay, what are the questions? Number one, you call you said the ICE person is an officer.

Mo Hamoudi 8:09

Yes.

Karen Koehler 8:10

Does but that's not a police officer.

Mo Hamoudi 8:12

It's a law enforcement agent.

Karen Koehler 8:13

Okay. Does the ICE officer have the authority to direct a civilian to get out of their car?

Mo Hamoudi 8:20

Absolutely.

Karen Koehler 8:21

Why?

Mo Hamoudi 8:22

Because he is in the process of effectuating his law enforcement duties. And so part of those duties is that he's been commanded by the executive to go effectuate arrests for purposes of immigration, for immigration purposes. And um and if anybody interferes with his ability to do that, he has the right to seize that person and arrest them for interfering with an investigation.

Mike Todd 8:47

How were they interfering?

Mo Hamoudi 8:49

By boxing in the vehicles, the ICE agents' vehicles. So what was happening was that people who disagree with the executives' initiatives to have that ICE is proceeding to arrest people are using their vehicles to stop ICE agents from going into communities and um arresting people.

Mike Todd 9:11

Is civil disobedience in the U.S. usually cleared for violent response?

Mo Hamoudi 9:17

Historically.

Mike Todd 9:18

Okay.

Mo Hamoudi 9:19

I mean, facts are, yeah. I mean, uh civil disobedience. So it's okay. Or an ICE agent. No, no. That's it.

Mike Todd 9:27

It's okay in the society right now for ICE agents to shoot people for doing nonviolent protesting.

Mo Hamoudi 9:36

No, the law does not allow an officer to use deadly force unless uh very specific circumstances are present.

Mike Todd 9:45

So then why do the officers have their guns drawn?

Mo Hamoudi 9:49

I think objectively, uh whenever you're in a situation, this is this is just objectively, based on my understanding of having like dealt with multiple cases. Police officers, when they're surrounded, one of the biggest things that they're trained to deal with is um uh ambush. Okay, so uh they're taught in training from the academy on that whenever you're at a scene is you have to secure a scene. The reason why you want to secure a scene is that you want to stop any blind spots, anything, because it's not only for your safety, but the safety of other officers and other people at the scene. So, as a general matter, if you feel that that a scene is escalating and that force may likely be used, at that point most officers will draw out their firearms to be at ready position to respond to force.

Protest Rights Versus Police Power

Mike Todd 10:46

So you're saying that those two women in their car, their motionless car, were such a grave threat to I know I I don't even know how many ICE officers were there, but there were multiple officers there.

Mo Hamoudi 10:59

Yeah, there were multiple officers.

Mike Todd 11:01

That that warrants a violent response.

Mo Hamoudi 11:04

Well, that's a separate question. I don't think the objective facts support the use of deadly force under the circumstances, but that's totally different inquiry.

Karen Koehler 11:13

So so going back to the beginning, yeah. So you are a good neighbor, you go out to protest.

Mo Hamoudi 11:22

Yeah.

Karen Koehler 11:24

It's a form of protest because it's not like it's a it's civil disobedience at that point. You go out and you are in your vehicle and there's ice agents near you and they have guns. And so what what are you supposed to do? As a person that's trying to help other people, should you should she just never have gone there?

Mo Hamoudi 11:54

Boy, that's a tough question. I mean, are you asking me my personal opinion or are you asking me like objectively, legally?

Karen Koehler 12:01

Well, just for all the people that are thinking, I want to go out and start I don't want my neighbor to be taken. I'm gonna go out there. Am I gonna be killed by an ICE agent? So is that the risk that we're now looking at? Is we can go do civil disobedience, but we are gonna risk being shot and killed by an ice agent.

Mike Todd 12:18

I mean, that's been a danger here in the US for as long as I can remember.

Karen Koehler 12:21

I mean But it's really a danger because it's happening.

Mike Todd 12:25

No, I know, but it happened in Kent State. It's happened, I mean, it's happened in multiple situations where there was protesting, and every single time the government is cleared of all findings. So I I assume that it's gonna continue. And I assume that anyone that wants to protest should be prepared to die these days.

Mo Hamoudi 12:46

I think that's fair. I think that's not fair. I think that's I'm not saying it's fair. Well, I'm saying reality.

Karen Koehler 12:54

Language.

Mo Hamoudi 12:54

Okay, wait, wait, wait. Okay, I'm saying that's a fair assessment that Mike is making. That like in this day and age, uh tensions are if you're going to protest, there is a risk that you will die.

Mike Todd 13:07

There's a higher risk now than there's ever been in my life.

Mo Hamoudi 13:09

There's a risk that you're gonna get shot or you're gonna have force used against you. Okay, so I mean, we just did a pause.

Karen Koehler 13:14

Just pause. But just pause on this moment. Yeah. Because this has been. This has changed in our lifetime.

Mike Todd 13:24

Oh, yeah, it has.

Karen Koehler 13:25

Because Kent State was an aberration.

Mike Todd 13:27

Yeah, when I was a kid, you were they use that of an example why you should protest.

Karen Koehler 13:31

Yeah. So so here we are now in 2026, being told by lawyers, yes, feel free to protest and know that you may die.

Mo Hamoudi 13:45

Yep. Yeah.

Karen Koehler 13:45

And and so, like, that is so let's let's back up even farther, because this is a legal podcast.

Mo Hamoudi 13:53

Yes.

Karen Koehler 13:54

How does how is how can we possibly have a First Amendment if that's the truth?

Mike Todd 14:01

Well, we're well, I would say that the the entire Constitution is being tested uh more in our society right now than it ever has been. And I think that I I mean, let's not forget, it's easy to look at liberal protesters, but you can also say the same thing happened to Ashley Babbitt when on January 6th. Yes, when she was trying to climb into the she was shot in what she believed was an act of protest against the government at that time. And I disagree with all with what they were doing, but I always say that they had the right to protest until they broke in and started breaking stuff.

Mo Hamoudi 14:43

Okay, so so Mike is pointing out something very important. So Ashley Babbitt was also killed by law enforcement while she was on property, government property, congressional halls, protesting the election. Uh Miss Good was also protesting um the what she perceived to be the unweight.

Karen Koehler 15:06

The government paid Abbott Abbott.

Mo Hamoudi 15:08

No, no.

Karen Koehler 15:09

Yes, they did.

Mo Hamoudi 15:10

No, they did not. The family? I don't know.

Karen Koehler 15:11

Yes, they did.

Mo Hamoudi 15:12

Oh, you mean uh oh, in a in a settlement, in a lawsuit.

Karen Koehler 15:15

They did.

Deadly Force And Car-As-Weapon Claims

Mo Hamoudi 15:15

Okay, but that's that's a post-event that I think is a separate inquiry. What we're talking about is that you're saying that you cannot you cannot like express your First Amendment beliefs without risking your life. I think that's accurate. I think that um when you say when I say accurate, I gotta qualify because you do not have a First Amendment right to obstruct uh legitimate law enforcement investigations. You do not have a First Amendment right to trespass onto government property and break through windows and do things like that. Your First Amendment rights are forfeited at that point. But you have another amendment, and that amendment is called the Fourth Amendment, and it says that you cannot have force used against you that is unreasonable and excessive. So what happened to Ashley Babbitt and what happened to Ms. Good is Are a little different. Are a little bit different, but basic uh my my assessment is that their Fourth Amendment rights were violated. You cannot use deadly force.

Mike Todd 16:21

See, I would argue that that isn't the case in Ashley Babbitt's case because there were what thousands of people that were rushing into the building and that were trying to break in, and those guys were afraid for their lives. Well, those those officers or what uh security agents, I don't know what they were inside a building.

Mo Hamoudi 16:38

In that situation, when you're talking about thousands of people, you when you use deadly force, you have to make an individualized assessment.

Mike Todd 16:46

Well, he did because he was trying to crawl through that window.

Mo Hamoudi 16:48

Yeah, but looking at her size and her ability, and what was she really going to do? Was she really gonna go in there and use deadly force against somebody who was in Congress? She had no way.

Karen Koehler 17:01

Hey, you don't know you are being, you know.

Mike Todd 17:04

Yeah. Let me tell you, Mo, if there's a hundred people at a door like that and they're trying to come in, I'd shoot.

Karen Koehler 17:10

Well, all I know is that you've got to put your male stuff away. Male stuff? Neanderthal stuff. What do you mean?

Mike Todd 17:20

You're trying to say it's an individual, but that was a mob, and you cannot say that they weren't afraid of the mob. Okay, Mike, okay, Mike. Okay, all I'm telling you.

Karen Koehler 17:29

This is not a mob situation.

Mike Todd 17:30

Okay, okay. The Renee Good situation is two people.

Mo Hamoudi 17:35

I can't believe this. If the law says you have to make an individualized assessment to use deadly force.

Karen Koehler 17:40

You're sounding very lawyer-like.

Mo Hamoudi 17:42

Because you're asking me to be the lawyer and give me the neutral facts and be the lawyers on the other hand.

Karen Koehler 17:46

I do want you to be a lawyer-like, but I also want you to be a little biased in favor of the.

Mo Hamoudi 17:50

I am not going to be biased on this.

Mike Todd 17:52

No, don't be biased. I don't know.

Mo Hamoudi 17:55

You know, I just think that I just think that like the construct of deadly force, the problem with what happened is that these are untrained people. The guy, you are trained by the Department of Homeland Security. The Department of Justice trains you that you use deadly force as a last resort. It's textbook. You have to use all reasonable alternatives for discharging that weapon.

Mike Todd 18:21

Hold on then. I didn't see them use any. In the Renee Good case, they did not do what you just said.

Mo Hamoudi 18:26

I know. I'm saying that the deadly force in that case was unreasonable.

Mike Todd 18:30

Now, in the other case, I I would I I will continue to argue that if you've got a mob coming out, you cannot say that they were only paying attention to one individual and that an ICE agent would have done anything different.

Mo Hamoudi 18:48

All I know is that a lot of people went into Congress, okay? And those that got in were walking around acting like idiots. But those that met force with police officers engaged in combat ended up hurting a lot of the officers. There was more justification to use deadly force when those officers were getting. I know, that's my point. Okay, but guess what? Those officers did not use deadly force. The reason why they didn't is because they understand, based on their training, that deadly force is really the last option. And so even the ones that were being physically assaulted, and the officers could have legitimately justified opening fire on that entire crowd, used restraint. This guy with Miss Good was just not only did did he just bump her a little, she bumped him a little bit, he shot three shots into the into the driver's seat.

Karen Koehler 19:45

By the way, she was not driving like on a highway.

Mo Hamoudi 19:47

No.

Karen Koehler 19:47

She was doing like a parking lot.

Mo Hamoudi 19:49

No, she was turning her car around.

Karen Koehler 19:50

But but so when we talk about bumping, we really mean bumping.

Mike Todd 19:54

So she was going maybe two to three miles an hour when the car bumped him. But the training is so important.

Karen Koehler 20:01

I can run faster than two miles.

Mike Todd 20:02

I mean, that's a guess. That's a guess. I'm not an expert.

Mo Hamoudi 20:04

But yeah. When you shoot three times into a car, knowing there is a passenger there, you have to understand that Well, that officer was gonna hit for sure, no matter what.

Mike Todd 20:13

Well, it's automatic training.

Mo Hamoudi 20:15

But the but the firearm, you don't know if your bullet's not gonna go through her and hit the passenger. You don't know if you're gonna miss the phone.

Mike Todd 20:21

Oh, he didn't care. They were both guilty of disaster. And so to me, I just think that like this is As a matter of fact, I'd I'd argue that they wanted them both to be dead.

Qualified Immunity And Civil Options

Karen Koehler 20:28

Okay, well, let me just say this. Yeah, that's the civil issue, but the criminal issue is different. Melanie in our office had a case against the city of Seattle that resolved last year, where there was uh somebody they were chasing.

Mo Hamoudi 20:43

I think it was another county, not city of Seattle. But I know which one you're talking about.

Karen Koehler 20:46

Not county. Sorry, Seattle. For once it's not you. Um different county, and they're chasing this guy, and they put down rumble strips and stuff. He I think he was intoxicated or under the influence. Yeah. And he he his car kind of wiggled or wobbled as he was, and and they claimed also that it was that because he was driving his car, it was deadly for that he could that it was a dangerous weapon and they could use d uh deadly force on on him. And they also shot through the car and killed him, even though he never struck anybody. And from the pathways that uh Melanie and her team looked at it, there was no way he was gonna strike strike anybody, and that jurisdiction settled that case for several million dollars. Well, because that's not that should not happen. Someone that and he was well known in that community for just being someone that shouldn't be drinking and driving, but a very peaceful fella. So the decisions here go so far back. Like, what is their training? Just even police training isn't good enough, in my opinion, to be running around with guns because they're shot, they're taught to shoot and kill. They're sh told, they are taught to shoot at the main master.

Mike Todd 22:05

There's no there's no law enforcement or military agency that is not taught to shoot to kill.

Karen Koehler 22:10

Shoot to kill. And they and the trainings that we've seen always has all these scenarios that result in an officer dying, right? Like the maybe someone has a kitchen knife in their hand and they're gonna kill the officer, whereas normally Well, we had another case like that. Yes, we do. But we've seen all the trainings. Every scenario is like, oh, they can't they're gonna kill you if you don't kill them first. You gotta kill them before they kill you. So they're sh taught to shoot to kill. So some of the comments I'd seen like were, why didn't he just take out a tire? Why didn't he well that's not gonna happen?

Mike Todd 22:46

Yeah, like it's not even that they're taught to shoot to kill. At that point, he was just doing what was the motor skills that he has trained into himself, and he was gonna hit her in the head or the or the torso.

Karen Koehler 22:59

It's a it's it's they that is taught to be your habit.

Mike Todd 23:01

Yeah.

Karen Koehler 23:02

So if if you're teaching the habit of shooting to kill, yeah, which all of them do, then you're gonna get these results.

Mo Hamoudi 23:12

You're gonna get results when you have a officer not follow his training. And that's what this officer did not do. He didn't follow his training. You you cannot assert as a this is about we're we're talking about that.

Karen Koehler 23:24

When he saw the vehicle moving, because a vehicle was moving as slow as molasses, when he saw it moving, what should he have done?

Mo Hamoudi 23:32

A reasonable officer would have moved out of the way.

Karen Koehler 23:34

And how it would have taken him one step.

Mo Hamoudi 23:36

One step. And but I I'm gonna go even a step further. A reasonable officer who got struck in the manner that he got struck would not have discharged his firearm, even if intentional, would not have shot his firearm in that way. This is precisely why you both say you've watched every training says when you use force, you use it to you don't use it to injure, you use it to Yeah.

Mike Todd 23:57

Once you put your finger on the trigger, you're going to be shooting someone.

Mo Hamoudi 24:00

Well, you put your finger, but when you when you make the training says when you decide to use the firearm, discharge, use deadly force. That's the term. Once you discharge a firearm, the training says that's deadly force, not injure force. No, yeah. Not less than deadly force. When you use the firearm, at that moment, you have it has to be last resort. That's why the training about least alternate least um altern most alternative measures have to be exhausted. The other thing is you cannot put yourself in a position of danger, then claim that I had to use deadly force. Okay, that's also in a which is he he did it might be. Okay, so objectively, the question is if you watch the video, did he kind of like move himself in front of the car? Did he position himself? Now, this is just civil. This is not criminal, that's super important. His intentions are irrelevant. The question is, would a reasonably well-trained officer under the circumstances use deadly force? The question is unequivocally no. So the civil case goes ahead. Now, like him civil, like criminally being held responsible is completely a different thing.

Karen Koehler 25:11

Wait a minute. The civil case does not go ahead because of qualified immunity.

Mo Hamoudi 25:14

There is qualified immunity.

Karen Koehler 25:16

But what is qualified immunity?

Mo Hamoudi 25:19

Well, immunity is that you're immune from suit.

Karen Koehler 25:23

The king cannot be sued.

Mo Hamoudi 25:25

Okay. Yeah.

Karen Koehler 25:25

That's what it means.

Mo Hamoudi 25:26

But there is a qualification to that immunity for law enforcement agents. That if the officer was not on notice at the time, that it wasn't clearly established to him that using deadly force in the way in which he did at that scene was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, he enjoys immunity. But he's gonna lose that because the case law has been around since for 40 years.

Karen Koehler 25:53

But he's gonna claim that the car was a dangerous weapon.

Criminal Jurisdiction And Supremacy Clause

Mo Hamoudi 25:57

It doesn't matter what he claims, his subjective intent is irrelevant.

Karen Koehler 26:01

But but a car is a dangerous weapon.

Mo Hamoudi 26:03

It is, but objectively, the manner in which the car was driven, moved, his uh movements and response to it demonstrate that that's really a question for the jury. So he's not gonna enjoy qualified immunity on that.

Karen Koehler 26:19

How are the how is a jury gonna have a question if this is a federal tort claims act and only the judge is gonna rule?

Mo Hamoudi 26:25

Well, the same standard under Federal Tort Claims Act is gonna apply, which is which is he's gonna he's gonna have he's gonna say I was immune from shooting. But if it's a federal case, it's gonna be a jury. It's gonna be a judge because it's gonna be filed in federal court. Correct.

Karen Koehler 26:39

So there's no jury, it has to be filed in the FTP FTCA. Yeah, they're gonna claim immunity. You think any attorney is gonna take this case?

Mo Hamoudi 26:47

I would.

Karen Koehler 26:48

Yeah, but do you think they're gonna win?

Mo Hamoudi 26:51

I will. Man, give me that case because you know what? Oh, I got some good ideas about that case.

Karen Koehler 26:59

I mean, you're gonna have the whole entire Trump, you know, vessel funding the the other side.

Mike Todd 27:06

Yeah, but that's come on, Karen. That sounds like every trial lawyer would be freaking drooling at that.

Karen Koehler 27:13

So I'm gonna be a little devil's advocate here because you know Let's go. I did watch I've watched and read enough to hear a lot of people saying, it's it's immunity, there's immunity, there's no civil case. It's never okay. So the qu the so the answer here is don't count on that. If they get the right lawyer, this can proceed until it can't proceed. There's no use not trying. Then we go to the second issue, which is is there a criminal case here? All right, come on.

Mike Todd 27:46

That's gonna be Moe's if it's an answer for most.

Karen Koehler 27:49

Let me let me let me tell you question number one, first of all. Okay, where's the jurisdiction? Well, I think Is it in the state or is it federal?

Mo Hamoudi 27:59

Both.

Karen Koehler 27:59

If it's federal, don't you lose because the U.S. attorney will not prosecute this case?

Mo Hamoudi 28:05

Okay, so what generally happens when you when the state charges a federal agent. Which hasn't happened yet. Which hasn't happened yet, with a crime. The state has jurisdiction, it has what you call uh sovereignty to be able to bring offenses, crimes committed against its citizens, against anybody. So the state has jurisdiction to charge them with a crime. But there is this thing called the supremacy clause, which says that, you know, the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Under the Supremacy Clause, uh federal agents uh can move to be held immune from criminal prosecutions. The process is that once he gets charged in whatever the county is in Minneapolis for a crime, he would move to have himself removed from state court to federal court. The question then becomes the same question for the civil uh issue. Is he entitled to immunity? And the judge would have to assess whether or not objectively he was reasonable in using deadly force, and that the deadly force, the term is proper and necessary, under the circumstances to discharge his duties. If that finding is made, then he is immune from criminal prosecution.

Mike Todd 29:31

And this is the state state court judge that's making that decision. No, the federal judge. Okay.

Mo Hamoudi 29:36

Yeah, yeah.

Karen Koehler 29:37

Okay. Getting to the bottom line, is he gonna be prosecuted?

Mo Hamoudi 29:43

Well, what I have heard is that they're investigating. But what happened was the FBI immediately took over the investigation. So the fact collectors are federal is a federal agency. And then, and then so they're gonna collect the facts. Now, I gotta say, there is some information out there, make sure it's verified or not, that he had previously in one of these protests been dragged like some feet because a car snatched onto him and dragged him, and it was he he he was you know either seriously injured or face serious injury. So the difference between the criminal and civil is super important. Because in civil, it doesn't matter what he thinks.

Karen Koehler 30:25

All right, I'm gonna I'm gonna direct him to answer the question. I want you to answer the question.

Mike Todd 30:29

Let me just ask him the one question.

Mo Hamoudi 30:31

Yeah.

Mike Todd 30:32

Why does it matter whether or not he got dragged by a car before?

Mo Hamoudi 30:35

I think it matters because if you're gonna ask why he acted the way he did under the circumstances, and because you're focused on what his subjective criminal intent, if that's the focus, he gets to say, I didn't have a criminal intent. I miscalculated, I made a mistake, I was scared, you know, I didn't realize what was happening. I overreacted. So he gets qualified immunity because he That's just that's just like That's just another excuse in my mind. That's just like that's just like a defense to any murder. Somebody says I didn't intend to kill somebody.

Mike Todd 31:04

He gets if I'm holding a gun on you and I fall down and it discharges and you die, I still murdered you.

Mo Hamoudi 31:10

Yeah, but then there's a degree of fault. Accidental, negligent, radical.

Mike Todd 31:13

I'm holding it with an intent to shoot you before I fell down.

Mo Hamoudi 31:16

I mean, these are questions for the jury. Okay.

Karen Koehler 31:19

There's no jury.

Mo Hamoudi 31:20

Back to back to that, Karen's. Yeah, what was your point?

Delays, Stays, And Litigation Strategy

Karen Koehler 31:22

Is he gonna be criminally prosecuted or not? That would be no, folks. He is not. He's gonna lie.

Mo Hamoudi 31:31

I I think I'm gonna tell you. Let me have anything.

Karen Koehler 31:36

All right, I thought you did.

Mo Hamoudi 31:37

I think that they're gonna I think they're gonna charge him criminally in state court. And I think it's gonna go, it's gonna they're gonna charge him in the county in Minneapolis, and what's gonna happen is gonna get removed to federal court, and then what's gonna end up happening is gonna be a big fight between uh state politics and federal politics over the killing of a Minnesota citizen. That's what I think the fight's gonna be.

Karen Koehler 32:00

Who's gonna win it?

Mike Todd 32:01

Ooh, it's gonna be that's a I I'm gonna say nobody's gonna win it because this argument is gonna continue for another couple years, whether or not the cases get resolved before then, and I don't think they will. So it's gonna really matter on who gets elected next.

Mo Hamoudi 32:27

That's unfortunate because you wish and you hope that elections don't decide how the law gets applied, but that's unfortunately the reality we live in. Ultimately, I think that the case should proceed uh civilly, and the family's clearly entitled to release under civil law.

Karen Koehler 32:47

Let's talk about that. So we often face this issue. Like the criminal case is not gonna go forward.

Mo Hamoudi 32:53

Yeah.

Karen Koehler 32:54

We have a case right now, we're looking at no criminal case. Three years ago, guy was shot and killed. Still no criminal charges. So civil. Civil is a possibility, right? Civil may be the only possibility. So let's say that they find a lawyer who will take this case, which all lawyers will take it. The question is whether the case will be won by those lawyers. Lawyer takes a case. Can they sue the shooter?

Mo Hamoudi 33:24

Absolutely.

Karen Koehler 33:25

What happens when you sue a shooter who has criminal charges pending? Maybe or maybe not.

Mo Hamoudi 33:31

Well, I mean, the shooter has Fifth Amendment protections. So he can't tell he can't do that. What happens to the case? Oh, they stay the case.

Karen Koehler 33:37

What's a stay?

Mo Hamoudi 33:38

A stay is a request to stop the case temporarily until something else addressed is addressed.

Karen Koehler 33:45

It's a big roadblock.

Mike Todd 33:46

Yeah, because then it just sits there until the criminal case is resolved, which can be years.

Karen Koehler 33:53

Yep.

Mike Todd 33:53

And then all the evidence has gotten really old, all the people have forgotten a little bit of what happened.

Karen Koehler 34:01

Well, luckily it's all preserved on video.

Mike Todd 34:03

It is, but you know, it makes the case more difficult.

Karen Koehler 34:06

Everything slows down when there's a criminal and a civil case together. That's that's the reality.

Mo Hamoudi 34:11

But I also think that a criminal prosecution should always take priority over a civil case.

Karen Koehler 34:16

Sure. But so in the old days, not that old, the advice used to be let the criminal procedure play out and then bring the civil case. The problem is they take forever. Sometimes those criminal case cases now take years. You cannot wait because everything is stale and old.

Mike Todd 34:32

Oh, yeah.

Karen Koehler 34:33

So very commonly we will file right away. They will stay the case, but normally only against that defendant's discovery. Everything else can continue.

Mike Todd 34:43

So the only thing you need they keep from you.

Karen Koehler 34:45

Or maybe we don't need it.

Mike Todd 34:46

Or maybe you don't know. You're not gonna know until you get it.

Mo Hamoudi 34:49

Because we don't, because uh unfortunately, some lawyers will just sort of like sit idly by and say, oh, right, there's a criminal case, let's stop everything, let's stay. And I don't know. Well, our our practice is is that if somebody tries to stay a case, we go, okay, be very specific about why you want to stay the case. And they'll say, Well, my guy faces Fifth Amendment uh risk, and he might be, okay, great, then don't have him, don't have him be deposed. We're still gonna do our job with every other aspect of the case, so we'll keep pushing the case forward in every other respect and then just wait and then depose him blast.

Karen Koehler 35:25

Half of the judges will stay the case and half of them won't, which really is irritating because I don't know why they have to stay the case. You know, if you want to take your fifth amendment, go take your fifth amendment. I don't care.

Mike Todd 35:38

Isn't it just a delaying tactic, really?

Karen Koehler 35:40

Well, delay delay, deny, defend. No, well, okay.

Mo Hamoudi 35:43

All right. I'm gonna have to push back a little. Delay, deny, defend. If you're criminally exposed, that means your liberty is gonna be deprived.

Karen Koehler 35:51

This is pro public defender.

Mo Hamoudi 35:53

That's not a pro-public defender. It's just like pure, like it's it's your it's your rights. Like if you're facing that you're I'm not saying that it's not his rights.

Mike Todd 36:03

I'm saying that they are using his rights as a delaying tactic in the case, often on purpose, because they want to have more time to decide what they're gonna do.

Politics, Prosecutors, And Likely Outcomes

Mo Hamoudi 36:15

Well, no, you need more he's not doing anything, or she's not doing whoever's being charged. No, the attorney. Their lawyers do not know. That's what I'm talking about. But they need to effectively defend him, they need to investigate, they need to hire experts, they need to go see what the evidence is. That can't happen overnight.

Mike Todd 36:30

Okay, so stop.

Mo Hamoudi 36:31

Okay.

Mike Todd 36:32

So my understanding. Can that happen? Can that absolutely have to take years to happen?

Mo Hamoudi 36:38

I don't think it needs to take years.

Mike Todd 36:41

I can't remember the name of it, but there was a case that I followed for a long time where a uh older gentleman and his wife were in a movie theater and they got in a fight with another guy, and the old gentleman shot him. That case took like, I want to say at least 10 years before it was resolved. That's all delaying tactics by the defendant.

Mo Hamoudi 37:05

Okay, that's that's not that's yeah, that's 10 years is too long. A case like this, I'm gonna focus on the good case. And that case, if it's charged tomorrow, should be going to trial at a minimum within 18 months. That is not a complicated case, okay? So the guy's not gonna be going into custody, he's gonna be out and free. And the family's entitled to have a quick resolution of whether or not the criminal accusation is upheld or not.

Karen Koehler 37:35

Let's be clear the family is a six-year-old child.

Mo Hamoudi 37:39

And a spouse.

Karen Koehler 37:41

Oh, was married. Yeah.

Mo Hamoudi 37:42

Yes. Yeah. And a spouse. Was that the kid? Who was next to her wife when she was killed? She was in the passenger seat.

Karen Koehler 37:49

Okay, yes.

Mo Hamoudi 37:50

Yeah.

Karen Koehler 37:51

Two. So spouse and child. Yeah, yeah.

Mo Hamoudi 37:54

And the community. By the way, when people are killed, the criminal action is on behalf of the people. It's not that the family lost, the community lost someone. The community is prosecuting the case. That's why they say the people versus whoever the defendant is, or the state versus whoever the defendant is.

Karen Koehler 38:12

All right, so postscript. What should happen here?

Mo Hamoudi 38:16

Um I think that the family should get a civil lawyer. I think that the family should immediately file a lawsuit. There's enough facts on that video, okay, to be able to swear off a complaint and draft it and start the process.

Karen Koehler 38:33

And you would and you would be and it would be um for a uh civil rights violation under Article 4.

Mo Hamoudi 38:39

Article IV, you mean the Fourth Amendment? Fourth Amendment. Well, it's a Federal Tort Claims Act case, so it would be for excessive force under the federal tort claims.

Karen Koehler 38:48

It would have to be filed in federal court.

Mo Hamoudi 38:50

It would have to be filed in federal court.

Karen Koehler 38:52

Which in Minneapolis is which district?

Mo Hamoudi 38:56

District of Minnesota, one district, the entire state. And then I would start that right now and start to put pressure, and I would be immediately trying to figure out what kind of training he received. And and if he's received the training that I know every federal law enforcement agent has received, uh there are two direct violations that can can clearly be identified. One was that he had alternative uh means of responding to what was happening that fell well short of deadly force. They're regularly trained on that. And the second is he put himself in a position where he's now trying to justify to use his deadly force.

Mike Todd 39:39

That he had already been in.

Mo Hamoudi 39:42

Yes.

Mike Todd 39:42

That's what I'm talking about. Yes. That he had already experienced and now was doing the same thing. Yes, yeah. You know, that's that seems a little weird.

Mo Hamoudi 39:49

And then I would also highlight the fact that in the complaint that after he shot her, he made the following comment. Pardon my French, he said, fucking bitch. And that's captured on the audio. Yeah. He did.

Karen Koehler 40:01

Oh, I did not know that. Oh, yeah.

Mo Hamoudi 40:03

And so to me To me, he did it on purpose. I would I would I would I think that I would I would I would lead heavy on that on the civil case. I would seek the training, and then I would I would be like, this is not an objectively reasonable officer. I know a lot of police officers who would not behave this way. One, use force like this, but two, speak like that after shooting somebody in the face three times.

Why Civil Action Still Matters

Karen Koehler 40:27

Well, I'm, you know, first of all, the family is obviously in shock and in mourning and trying to figure out what to do. And this is probably the last thing that they want to do. Um, and we've talked about that before. Like it's a lot to have to go through making the decision to contact a lawyer and get relief. But in a case like this, where unfortunately millions of people saw a woman executed on the streets of Minnesota, Minneapolis. If a lawsuit isn't brought, then the legacy from that shooting is that people what, Mike, you end this.

Mike Todd 41:11

Well, I was gonna say, but in our current political climate, I think it's very possible that it's not gonna be that none of this is gonna happen.

Karen Koehler 41:18

None of what's gonna happen.

Mike Todd 41:19

That nothing's gonna happen on the criminal side and that uh it's gonna crush the civil side because of that. They'll still try, but I don't think the civil side's gonna be able to do that.

Karen Koehler 41:29

So basically basically if if your only chance is a civil lawsuit for anything, if you don't take that chance, then all hope is died.

Mike Todd 41:40

Yeah. But I mean, look at it from the the layman's view. We've got the FBI is led by someone who is woefully inexperienced for the job and is going to be the and is the agency that's in charge of investigating. Then we've got a Department of Justice who I believe didn't a bunch of people just quit because of this case.

Karen Koehler 42:06

Well, I don't know. It's had a huge turnover. The Department of Justice has had a huge turnover. But you know, we don't want to just make this a political issue.

Mike Todd 42:16

I'm not trying to. I'm just saying that the the politics do play into it. And I believe the politics are gonna be the reason that nothing happens.

Mo Hamoudi 42:22

Well, uh I uh just to Mike's point, politics exist everywhere, okay? But if you have objective, dispassionate prosecutors and lawyers who are, in my experience, have historically been in offices like at the U.S. Attorney's Office or at the prosecutor's office, if you have dispassionate people and look at the facts, there is evidence here. And you just follow the evidence. And the evidence leads to one, an action being filed civilly, and an action maybe being filed, you know, based on based on the discharge of the firearm for other purposes.

Karen Koehler 43:00

Okay, we're gonna have a bet. Who in this room thinks that he's gonna be criminally charged and it's gonna stick? That would be zero.

Mo Hamoudi 43:15

That would be zero.

Karen Koehler 43:16

Wait, wait, no, no.

Mo Hamoudi 43:16

I think I think I need more evidence, but I think that if if we're looking just purely at what what I had.

Karen Koehler 43:22

I believe that Minnesota would would charge him.

Mo Hamoudi 43:25

I think he's gonna get charged.

Karen Koehler 43:26

But that would be thrown out.

Mike Todd 43:27

Yeah, I don't think it's gonna go. Okay, so that yeah, yeah.

Karen Koehler 43:30

It has to be actually different.

Mike Todd 43:32

Yeah, prosecuted is what we're talking about. Not charged. And that's where we get into the politics thing. Like both sides of the political spectrum right now are exploiting this and are gonna continue doing this until people stop talking about it. And I think that because of that, the state politicians in in Minnesota are going to push for him to be prosecuted. They probably will charge him, but it's good, like you said, it's gonna be up to the federal. And right now, the federal deck is against all of us.

Karen Koehler 44:05

I think that the only chance is a civil opportunity to have any kind of airing, and that might not be successful, but at least it's worth a shot.

Mike Todd 44:13

Yeah, I hope that happens. I hope that it continues, but at that point, then it's really just a political act action. Yeah.

Karen Koehler 44:19

Yeah.

Mike Todd 44:20

Well, we're gonna have to see.

Karen Koehler 44:23

Well, this was a hopeless conversation.

Mike Todd 44:24

No, it wasn't. It was good, it was informative, it was not happy, but it was it was not happy.

Karen Koehler 44:30

Look, we gotta have faith in the law.

Mike Todd 44:32

It's not a happy thing. I mean, you were talking about to go back, you were talking about how you've had to look at stuff, and I I've had to look at stuff that was horrible. Yeah, horrible, that is burned in my brain, and anytime I think about it, it's always there. Yeah. When I watched this video, I'm so numb to it now that it was almost like I could have I could see someone getting shot and not feel it at all. And it really disgusted me when I saw that.

Karen Koehler 45:00

Yeah.

Mike Todd 45:01

And and that's part of where everything's been going with our society over the last 20 years of me working here.

Karen Koehler 45:10

Yeah.

Mo Hamoudi 45:10

It's a horrifying incident, it's terrible. Well, our and to have your loved one shot down and right next to you, yeah, and and shot down like that, you know, I I I just, you know, I I use this word really sparingly. But when somebody shoots a firearm in a car like that, I would have no problem just, you know, saying that that's that was a coward act. You don't do that. Come on. You don't just shoot a shoot a person in the face. Back of the head, actually. You know, it just, you know, it to me, it's just like, to me, I go, come on. And you know, the six-year-old.

Karen Koehler 45:52

I don't do that. I go damn you to hell, and I hope you suffer for the rest of your life.

Mo Hamoudi 45:57

But the child is now, the child is gonna grow up. And there's this video out there on the damn internet. And so this child is gonna learn about their own mother's last days by going on the web, stumbling on it. No, somebody else is gonna tell her about it. Someone's gonna tell her, you know, and so here's the thing. This is why you bring the civil action. You do not let the legacy of this woman to be defined by this act. You say the legacy lives on. This is why you charge him criminally. You let a jury decide.

Karen Koehler 46:30

Well, you know, we did let a jury decide on Summer Taylor, and we lost, but did we lose? Because the jury said that she was not at fault. They were not at fault. That's right. Sorry.

Mo Hamoudi 46:39

She wasn't at fault. They were not. They were not at fault. No. No.

Mike Todd 46:43

No.

Karen Koehler 46:43

No.

Mike Todd 46:44

We've had that happen in an in-class.

Karen Koehler 46:45

That was important. Yeah. That was important.

Mike Todd 46:48

I'm not saying that it's not important.

Karen Koehler 46:50

But yes. Well, the bottom line is our condolences to this family. We have no faith in the criminal system doing what's right here. The only choice and chance is to do the civil system. Over and out.