You're listening to Civic Media.
You can tune in to any of our live shows on any radio station across the state with the Civic Media app.
Find us in your phone's app store and listen anytime, anywhere.
Good, good morning.
Welcome, welcome to MidMornings on Civic Media.
My name is Craig Bock.
I am your host coming to you live from Radio Park in Racine.
always be part of the conversation.
You can call or text.
The number is 855-752-4842-855-75 civic.
You can leave a comment on the live stream.
Currently we are streaming on Facebook, YouTube and the platform that we still call Twitter.
We have a really good show for you today.
I'm very, very excited for everything we're going to be talking about at 9 20.
We're going to be welcoming amicus a law review host Jim Santel.
He is a former US attorney.
Practicing attorney right now, host, amicus, a law review every Saturday from 9am to 11am.
You can always catch that live here on civic media.
He will be here today to break down further.
some of the details, the legal ramifications around some of the biggest stories coming out right now, including if you haven't already heard, I'm sure you already know that yesterday, a young woman named Renee Nicole Good was shot and killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis.
We are finding out more information as that story develops.
And by now, a lot of you have seen the video as well.
We are going to be talking to Jim about the incident as well itself, as well as the legal ramifications for discharging a firearm, as well as any sort of recourse or redress.
The family, city or state may be able to partake in if they see fit, but we'll be having that conversation with him.
He'll also be going over his discussion on, he had a really great show last Saturday.
you can go to civicmedia.us slash shows look for amicus a law review and download last Saturday's episode where he talks in great length about the the bombing invasion.
The takeover of Venezuela apparently we are going to be running the country apparently by words of the president Donald J Trump But Jim is going to be joining us to talk about once again the legal ramifications of that action both from a national standpoint an international standpoint where we go from here and
possibly a discussion on this newfound belief that there's no such thing as international law.
I just found this out last night.
I had no idea.
It didn't make the headlines, but I guess according to pundits on 24 hour news networks, there's no such thing as international law.
So I guess, well,
There you go.
Happy New Year.
He'll also be talking about the resignation of Hannah Dugan, now former Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge who was arrested last year for and convicted late last year on charges of obstruction for helping a young man out of a room.
That's my...
brazen, non-legal take on it all, but he will be here at 9 20.
He'll be spending a lot of time with us today talking about those topics.
Those are really big topics.
And I want him to break down the legal ramifications because he is a lawyer.
I am lawyer adjacent.
So, uh, that will be coming up over the course of today's show.
And then at 10 35, our good buddy, Paul Noonan, writer for the Acme packing company will be here to talk about this Saturday's game.
Packers versus bears.
Are you excited?
Is it a, you know, whatever, uh,
What do you think for this weekend?
We want to know about your thoughts.
You want to, you want to get in touch with us, let us know what, what you'll be doing.
Will you be watching the game?
And then also actually Paul and I will be talking about the fact that the, the things that are happening in Venezuela right now actually are touching on, uh, was, uh, touch it on Wisconsin sports, specifically the brewers and having to do with brewers players, but we'll talk more about that in the second hour.
And then finally we'll wrap things up.
With this shouldn't be a thing.
Today it is the private menu edition.
We were gonna do it yesterday, didn't get a time.
So we'll do it today.
Today is the private menu edition of this shouldn't be a thing.
Don't go anywhere.
Lots and lots of great stuff ahead, but.
A couple of things in the headlines here today from a, from the federal side of it all, this is reporting in NPR, Sam Gringlas has the, has the byline house to vote on renewing ACA subsidies as a potential deal takes shape in the Senate.
And as we know, the ACA subsidies, those who take part in the ACA receive subsidies so it can help that, that health insurance to attain health insurance on a more affordable plane.
The subsidies were set to and they did expire at the end of last year and it was a big, big sticking point during the government shutdown.
Democrats wanted to extend those subsidies indefinitely.
Republicans did not want to do it.
It did not end up happening.
There was a promise of a discussion to be had if they did reopen the government on a continuing resolution, which we'll get to in a moment, the fact that we are possibly facing another shutdown coming up.
The House is set to vote today on a measure that will renew the enhanced health insurance subsidies that expired at the end of last year.
And I think an important point to make about this is that this vote happening with Republicans in charge of the House is going against the wishes of the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson,
who last year just had no time to talk about this.
When it came to the subsidies, he just, it was between that and swearing in a newly elected congresswoman from Arizona.
He had no time to talk about these things.
He does not want this to happen, but I think that.
Republicans are seeing the writing on the wall, the fact that their constituents take part in the ACA.
That is also Obamacare.
They are one and the same.
It's not two separate programs.
They are taking part in this.
They are seeing people face really hard times with trying to afford to get healthcare.
They are hearing from their constituents, so they're bringing it up for a vote.
The problem is that it looks like it's going to pass, but it does not look like it has much of a future in the Senate.
The Senate is looking towards a more bipartisan quote unquote fix.
They call it a deal on a compromise bill for the Affordable Care Act subsidies.
This is coming out of the Senate.
That's a bipartisan effort.
We'll see how that goes.
But I wanted you all to know that that is actually going through the house today and we'll keep you up to speed on what's happening there if it goes anywhere.
But they are taking up action because this isn't just about
one side versus the other.
This is about accessing healthcare.
And this isn't about giving people free healthcare either.
This is about making it a little more affordable for everyone.
It's not just groups and cities or farmers.
A lot of folks depend on the ACA for their healthcare coverage.
And I think that finally Republicans are seeing that they need to do something about this.
And extending these subsidies is not a form of welfare or someone taking advantage of the system.
It's just good policy for people to invest in their own healthcare.
Because healthcare is something that
does benefit communities and their state and their country if they can access it.
On the other side, going to the state side of the news, yesterday we were talking about all of the bills that are being put through the Wisconsin legislature for the next few weeks because we do have a short work year this year.
This is the year after the budget.
So that means that they're going to get a nice, long, crispy, well-paid
vacation, so they got to get all the work they can get done done.
And I named off some of the things that they are working on that I believe are not keeping in mind the real concerns of Wisconsinites.
And when we talk about those topics that usually centers around health care coverage, health care access, education, affordability, good living, just, just, you know, clean water, clean air, those types of things.
And we highlighted a few that just seemed had nothing to do with that, including making sure that it was biomedical equipment couldn't come from China or Iran.
We had to protect our genetic testing materials and also having to do with...
When can we actually acknowledge when a young person changes their name or pronouns?
Those were all the hot button issues that they felt really needed bills to go through Madison.
And this is another one that I want to talk about really quick.
We touched on it briefly last year because it was just being discussed, but this is out of Wisconsin public radio.
Anya, Anya von Wagon tonk has got the, a byline on this one.
She's been covering a lot of these stories coming out of Madison with regard to the bills in the new session.
And this one is Wisconsin Republicans way proposals to
expand access to firearms.
That's right.
We're talking about firearms again.
Republican state lawmakers are considering proposals that would increase access to guns in Wisconsin, including one that would make it easier to carry concealed weapons and another that would further enshrine gun rights in the state constitution.
Currently, if you want to hold a concealed carry firearm, you have to go through what I have been told by some who've gone through this is minimal.
Very minimal training and or certification But some feel that even that is just too much So they are talking about getting rid of that all together so I can just walk into a shop Buy a gun put it on my hip and then there you go.
There's no background checks There's no anything like that because they feel that a four to six hour class is just It's just trampling my freedoms just trampling on all of my freedom.
So we got to get rid of that and
They want to take it one step further because in the state constitution, this is something that always seems to come up.
When they can't legislate it properly, they want to put it in the constitution all the time.
They want to always enshrine things in the constitution.
Right now in the state constitution, it says currently regarding firearms, quote, have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation, or other lawful purposes.
It states that the right is, quote, fundamental, but it is not absolute.
That is in our state constitution.
The proposed change would redefine that right as, quote, inalienable.
And that, quote, any restriction on that right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.
That refers to a high legal standard in which challenges must be motivated by achieving a compelling state interest.
This is all coming from the story written by Anyavan Wagondonk and WPR.
That story will be
linked in the show notes today.
And this is, you know, yesterday, we're talking about sex education with kids and what they should be watching and what they should be told as far as, you know, they're not being told how to have safe sex.
They're told being told, you know,
abstinence is the preferred model for them to use.
I don't hear parents talking about sex education in schools as a major concern for their family or for their well-being here in the state.
They're talking about, can they afford to send their kids to school?
Can they afford to pay their house?
Can they afford to pay for their car?
Can they want to have a good future for their kids?
Things like this, access to firearms is also something.
And when we do hear from people, it's like, hey, maybe
red flag laws, maybe some background checks, maybe things that most Wisconsinites and Americans agree on when it comes to firearms.
Meanwhile, in Madison, our lawmakers are saying, you know what, let's just make it a free for all and let's not talk about education.
Let's not talk about childcare affordability.
Those are things that do not need to be discussed at this moment because I have more important things to discuss and that has to do with whether or not, you know,
I'm trying to, there was, there was one from yesterday that just was a kind of, kind of ridiculous too.
It was, oh yes, we need to make sure there's a bill that tells insurance companies that they cannot cover organ transplants that have been harvested illegally through organ donation, intimidation, robbery, things of that nature.
That's what we need a law for, not.
Investing in our future, not protecting our children, it's more about let's make sure everyone has a gun and no one can get a new heart out of some illegitimate country here.
So I just feel like these are the moments where we need to talk to our lawmakers.
They have a short work year, as we said, they're going to be going on break very soon.
And if you want to talk to them, go to myvote.wi.gov.
Tell them the important things you want them to deal with.
Tell them the important things you want to enshrine in law and make them understand that this is an election year.
And we will be watching closely on who's running for the job again and who wants the job because we want real leadership in this state for us, for our future and for the country.
So when we come back, we're going to be speaking with Jim Santel, who is the host.
of amicus, a law review.
He is on every Saturday from 9am to 11am.
You can catch that all the time.
You can find it on the website, download past episodes, but we'll be talking about Minneapolis, Venezuela and, uh, Hannah Dugan, the next chapter in that story.
But don't go anywhere.
You're listening to mid mornings on civic media.
My name is Greg box.
Stay tuned and stay close.
You're listening to Civic Media.
Stay up to date on the latest news and information for your local community and Wisconsin by signing up for our free email newsletter.
Visit civicmedia.us slash email to get started.
Welcome back to MidMornings on Civic Media.
My name is Greg Bach.
I am your host and I am here with you for the next
I don't like hour and a half hour and 40 minutes.
We're going to have a, it's a great show for you ahead.
And we're coming to you live from radio park in Racine.
I've got Calvin on the boards.
I didn't say hello to him yet.
Hello, Calvin.
How are you this morning?
You know, I'm doing well, Greg.
It's Thursday.
We're almost to the end of the week.
I honestly, like, I just, that, that is ridiculous to me.
It's like, I was talking to a coworker of ours yesterday and we're like, it's Wednesday.
It's almost Thursday.
What is going on here?
But that's what they call the March of time.
So time marches on through the rest of the morning.
We still got a great show ahead of you at 1035 Paul Newton from the Acme packing company.
We'll be here talking about the big playoff game against the Packers and the Bears, as well as how the actions in Venezuela are touching on the.
So you want to stick around from that and take around for that.
And then at 1052, we're going to be doing this shouldn't be a thing, private menu edition.
So stick around.
It's going to be a wonderful, wonderful show.
It gets even better now because of our next guest.
He is a former U S attorney, currently a practicing attorney, host of amicus, a law review every Saturday here on civic media from 9am to 11am.
Mr. Jim Santel is our guest.
Welcome back, sir.
How are you today?
It is Thursday.
No drought of significant news.
I suspect as you indicated for your listeners just a few moments ago.
Once again, your mid mornings broadcast here is going to be all about law school.
Listen, we have to go back to law school to understand what is going on in America.
Do we not, my friend?
Do we not indeed?
We always do, especially when we talk to you because you are you kind of like our lawyer on retainer here.
I retain you with friendship and the occasional pretzel bite.
But I wanted to open the show up today with your discussion on Venezuela because last week on your show, you had a I mean, you spent
a majority of your time discussing that issue, but, and we will get to that, I think it would be, I think I'd be remiss if I did not start with the breaking news out of Minneapolis, which is the shooting death of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis.
We've seen the video.
We're finding out more information as we as we hear from various officials of Minneapolis and Minnesota.
We've heard from the governor.
We've heard from the mayor of Minneapolis.
We've heard from I believe the I believe the police chief is about to make a statement as well.
So there's more information coming out and I don't want to get deep into the speculation of it all because I feel like that is what everyone else is doing.
What I want to do is talk to you, Jim.
about the legal ramifications of all this.
What are the legal questions that are called in when looking at an incident like this in Minneapolis from your experience?
What are the first things that pop into your mind?
We'll
But we're still sort of in that information gathering stage.
And so
All of this is important for your listeners to digest as we get more information from all the folks you just identified.
But there are turns out, turns out not surprisingly, the United States Supreme Court, which you and I often talk
about on
this wonderful broadcast, has told us an awful lot about how we analyze legally and factually the kinds of things that are out here.
I know that you've got many listeners who enjoy this kind of thing.
We can talk about a case called Graham versus Connerway back in 1989.
Tennessee versus Garner in 1985.
This law has been around for a long time and the point of that is law enforcement gets schooled and trained on this.
on a regular basis.
So what do those cases say?
Again, two different cases to the same end.
The fundamental notion is that this is a Fourth Amendment issue once again.
Lethal force, which is what we have here.
We've got a law enforcement officer firing into this van.
As you said, it's a 37 year old.
She is a United States citizen.
That doesn't make a difference, again, under the Constitution.
But the question is whether or not that action was objectively
not subjectively, objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, deadly force, deadly force, the big issue here, permissible only when the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect, in this case, the driver is good, poses, here we go, here's the language, an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to those officers or to others.
Let me repeat that.
That's really important, right?
Objectively reasonable.
You can look at the tape and take another information, but they only use lethal force, which is deadly force.
You only pull at your weapon and fire to kill someone on the streets of America.
If in fact there is a reasonable, objectively reasonable belief that there is an imminent threat, meaning immediate.
This is going to happen right now.
A threat of death.
or some serious bodily harm to the officers or some other people.
And again, the other things we can put on the table here as we unpack all this, believe it or not, there's another case from just this past May in 2025, Supreme Court basically saying, when you analyze that, it's a case called Barnes versus Felix.
We talked
about it on this show one
The reality is that you look at all the circumstances.
You don't just look at the specific snapshot of what happened.
Normally, what that would do is it would ensure that, yeah, there's a complete understanding of what's going on here.
And you wouldn't simply look at the moment at which the officer fires.
You look at everything up to, and frankly, even following that.
And usually that puts things in some context.
Was the person doing something to create this imminent death, a threat of death or harm?
What was going on?
And again, in this Barnes vs. Felix case, the Supreme Court said, you look at everything.
You look
And the question that Americans and you and I and listeners need to look at is, again, whether or not under this circumstance, we can talk more about the facts after more here, but whether there was this imminent threat of death,
And that's objectively reasonable.
I would offer that it was not there.
And we're going to talk more about that on the other side.
Go grab some snacks, grab some water, come on back.
We're talking to Jim Santel, host of Amicus, a law review on the shooting death by a nice agent in Minneapolis yesterday, talking about the legal ramifications of it all.
But we're going to continue that discussion on the other side.
Don't go anywhere.
You're listening to MidMornings on Civic Media.
My name is Greg Bach.
Stay tuned.
Stay close.
Good.
Good.
Good morning.
Welcome back.
Mid mornings on civic media.
My name is Craig Bach.
I am your host, and you are listening to us live from Radio Park here in Racine.
If you want to get in touch with us, you can always call or text.
The number is the same 855-752-4842.
Leave a comment on that live stream.
We are currently live streaming on Facebook, YouTube, and the platform that we still call Twitter.
Still lots more ahead, including a discussion with Paul Noon in a 1035 about
Packers bears game this Saturday as well as how Venezuela is touching on the Milwaukee brewery.
So you don't want to miss that conversation and then wrapping it all up with, this shouldn't be a thing today.
It's the private menu edition.
So be here, be now, be informed.
We got Mr. Jim Santel as our guest talking further on the events yesterday, taking place in Minneapolis.
An ice agent shot a woman, a nickname, a cold, good to death.
While she was well, it is believed that she was trying to get away in her car and now Less than 24 hours later Jim everyone seems to have their opinions on what happened.
We are you know I've looked at the video I have my opinions and we'll sure we'll talk about that in a minute But we're talking about the legal ramifications of all this because Jim is the host
of amicus, a law review here on civic media every Saturday from 9am to 11am.
You can check that out.
You can always download episodes if you've missed them on civicmedia.us slash shows.
But Jim, you were talking, you were, you were starting everything out really just kind of giving a background on what will justify the use of legal, I'm sorry, of lethal force by, uh, by a police or by, uh, I guess,
What would ice be?
They're not police officers law enforcement, I guess
Generally, I think that's fair to say, but I don't think anybody would would dispute the fact that they're in that capacity.
And again, the question is you and I listeners and all those other folks you made reference to are thinking about today is okay.
When you look at that video and you've got at least one, maybe even two views of that.
Is it reasonable?
Is it objectively reasonable to believe that that officer
who is at the front of that van as Ms.
Good is undeniably fleeing the scene.
We'll get back to that in just a moment.
Is it objectively reasonable to think that that officer had a reasonable belief about an imminent, meaning immediate threat of death or some serious bodily injury to him or others?
What about that incident prompted that officer to think that someone is about to die?
And for that reason, what I've got to do is I've got to fire my weapon into that van.
to kill her.
And again, you look at that and notwithstanding what our president has said, our Secretary of Homeland Security has said, it is very, very difficult, if not impossible, to look at that and say, yes, imminent threat of death.
As you just said, Greg, she's plainly fleeing the area.
She is plainly trying to get out of the area.
And no indication at all that she poses that kind of threat.
That objective reasonableness is the way in which this case should be analyzed.
Well, and that's, you know, that's where it leads me to a few points is that one, you know, I would say within an hour, if not less, the narrative of she was trying to run him over was, was being proposed and was really, I mean, that is what every
person who supports the president is saying now she was a terrorist.
She was radicalized.
She was trying to run them over.
She is, you know, she got what she deserved.
Even though a few months ago we were talking about how terrible political violence is.
Like it's the, the, that sort of rhetoric as it festers within our various forms of media and social media, because I don't want like the fact is, as I said earlier,
It's so fresh.
It's so new.
We don't know a whole lot.
So making these claims does not help society in the sense that like when you, it comes down to if there is a case, if there is a lawsuit and we are in court about that and you want to find 12 measured balanced individuals sitting in a room watching this, how does all of this poison the well for actual decision making, basing your decisions on the
precedent that you just talked about that's where it's for me is like this notion is a lawyer's gonna have to Push a narrative of she got what she deserved.
She was she was a threat and he was protecting and we go back to the thing of well We gotta back the blue there, you know, they're they're always in danger that kind of thing I just think this rhetoric makes a discussion as and specifically a case hard to make in the defense of her life if I'm if that's not a crazy idea to have
And one of the things that you were stricken with, and I was stricken with also when the president last night, again, apparently, get to the New York Times as well, publishes on social media this notion that the officer was, as you said, run down.
And there was reference to his being in the hospital, actually, right?
So we're actually even taking the facts of this and materially misstating
what happened here.
Why not say instead, number one, bemoan the fact that a United States citizen, a resident of this nation, has been killed.
She is dead.
That is tragedy once again.
Start with that, Mr. President and Secretary Nome.
Then go on to say, we anticipate that there will be a full investigation of this under these standards.
And at some point there'll be determination whether or not the officers, one in particular, but frankly, two or three of them there, more of them.
acted in compliance with what the Supreme Court has said, make those statements, and again, reserve judgment until there can be that investigation, which there certainly will be, and instead, recraft, recraft the very facts of what happened here.
Those facts, as the President is describing them, are simply refuted.
by the clear video itself.
There will be more exposition of that.
Absolutely.
Other people, witnesses on the scene there.
We will not hear from Ms.
Good obviously because she is dead.
But all of that is a part of the investigation.
in the meantime, you know, other things that are important about this, she was plainly fleeing, right?
In addition to this notion of imminent threat, um, the Tennessee versus garden of this second case also says that the deadly force, which is what happened here.
Nobody disputes deadly force here, uh, killing her cannot be used solely to prevent the escape of an unarmed, non dangerous fleeing person.
Okay, there is a fundamental notion.
She's fling.
She's trying to get away and Yes, if she had a gun and she is pointing at the officers outside of her out of her window and she's shooting at them Then you've got that
no indication that any of that was there.
Tennessee versus Gardner also says cannot do this.
A couple of other things, Greg, just to keep in mind as we think about the analysis and the facts here, awful lot of federal and state policy also say that de-escalation is what should happen here, right?
If you've got a situation where somebody, again, she's blocking the street.
Again, that may well be some civil disobedience.
It probably is, probably an ordinance
violation for which you get cited maybe even arrested that's that's what civil disobedience is all about but the whole concept behind law enforcement is deescalate not escalate the situation using force only when less extreme measures
are ineffective, not feasible.
You saw the other officers walking up to the side of the van trying to open the car door.
She apparently appears to be screaming back at them.
Nothing about screaming, warrants being shot by police officers.
Verbal warnings, if feasible, also required by policy, by the law.
And that appears to have been maybe what they were headed toward doing.
And then we get this third or maybe fourth or fifth officer intervening.
and turning this all on its head and firing, killing her again.
The question is other alternatives that could have brought this matter to solution long, short, long before this kind of horrific event and those were plainly not pursued.
One other just observation about this.
Fascinating to note that this event takes place, I'm told, within about a mile of where George Floyd was killed.
back in 2020 by another law enforcement officer, also violative, as we found.
Criminal violation, constitutional violation, and Derek Chauvin, others facing and did face those criminal prosecutions for this kind of conduct.
Also being defended by the same people who say that this man acted in his lawful right to...
to kill this woman saying that Derek Chauvin did nothing wrong and now saying George Floyd died of an overdose.
It's all about rewriting the narrative.
It's about revisionist history.
It's about making themselves seem like the victors and the big winners.
And it's just, when you look at the video, I'm sorry, I don't believe what they're trying to tell us.
That is my opinion and my opinion only.
I did not see a woman who was trying to run anyone over.
And also you talk about de-escalation.
Immediately you heard people talking about, well, why couldn't they take a picture of her license plate?
Why couldn't they try to taste?
There are so many other options.
Why did you pull out the final one at the first moment you could?
I mean, those are the big questions.
And I got Cindy from Appleton on the line here.
Cindy, good morning.
Thank you for calling in.
What do you have for us today?
I'll tell you what.
These are not authorized police officers, as far as I'm concerned.
These ICE agents are nothing but a bunch of thugs.
They are murderers.
They have murdered many people.
And we as citizens, I don't care if you're a Democrat or Republican, you should be calling your legislators telling them that is enough of this crap.
We are unarmed, innocent citizens being gunned down in our own streets by thugs that are paid for by our tax dollars.
And you know, send me one of those.
You raise a very important point.
One of the other things as we think about what happened the end yesterday, these other incidents you describe is just this.
Ask the question, who are these people, right?
Many of them asked.
I'm waiting for the investigative report.
Greg, I know that through Civic Media, we've got some resources, but probably not the resources to do all of this.
I'd be fascinated to know.
Who is on the ranks right now?
What are the roles of these ice officers?
Not just there in Minneapolis, but just Cindy's good point.
Who are they?
And
reasonable for me to assume that at least some of them are among those 1500 people that the president may have pardoned who have now gotten jobs, who are not schooled, who are not trained in doing this, and do not have the understanding of, and I'm not asking you to know what the Supreme Court cases are, but this is a fundamental thing for beat cops to know, Cindy, is your point, that again, you do de-escalate, you don't use lethal force,
unless you've got, once again, this immediate, in-the-moment notion that I'm about to die, some other people are about to die, and the only thing I can do is to fire that weapon.
That is a fairly fundamental notion.
It's taught to law enforcement.
And the question is, were these officers taught that?
Were they trained in that?
Who are they?
And it goes to your very good questions, Cindy, on this Thursday morning.
Jenny on the live stream says, from my understanding, ICE agents do not have the same legal authority as say local law enforcement.
Does Jim have more on what distinct, what distinct federal authority agents have distinction and do not have, and she goes on to say officers do not equal agents.
And I'm going to have you answer that with your thoughts after when we come back.
And I also then want to touch on,
the question of what is the legal recourse then for the families involved for this the municipality the state because we've heard from both the governor and the mayor that like very unhappy about this of course very not with the policies of Donald Trump which some say would be maybe with the reason why Donald Trump sent ICE agents to Minneapolis
because of the daycare scandal, which is another, that's a whole other rabbit hole.
I don't know if we have time to get into, but I want to talk about where do families and local government go from here after we see such a horrible show of force.
based on what looks like very little training from a man who is masked.
And now we have to find out who this is.
But more with Jim Santel, when we come back, he is the host of Amicus a Law Review.
That is on every Saturday from 9 a.m.
to 11 a.m.
here on the Civic Media Radio Network.
Don't go anywhere talking more about the incident in Minneapolis yesterday, but we will take your calls and your questions and your communications here on the phone line 855-752-4842-85
You're
listening to Civic Media.
Find the latest news, information, and archives of all your favorite shows on the Civic Media website, civicmedia.us.
Welcome back to mid mornings on civic media.
My name is Greg Bach.
I am your host coming to you live from Radio Park and Racine along with Calvin Butenhoff on the ones and twos.
We are your guys for the next hour or so.
You can always get in touch.
You can always be part of the conversation.
Call or text 855-752-484-2855-75 civic.
Leave a comment on that live stream.
We are currently streaming on Facebook, YouTube and the platform that we still call Twitter.
Still lots of great show.
How do you including Jim is going to be here in the second hour to discuss
what's going on in Venezuela, how that has legal ramifications both at home and abroad.
And this notion, I guess that international law no longer exists.
So congratulations, I guess did that.
That's a new thing I just heard about.
And, uh, and then at 10 35, we'll talk to Paul Newton about the upcoming playoff game between the Packers and the Bears and why Venezuela actually has effects on the brewers.
So you don't want to miss any of that.
Still lots more ahead of us.
If you're just joining us now, we have Jim Santel here, who is the host of amicus, a law review.
It is on every Saturday at.
9am to 11am on the civic media radio network.
Can't catch it live.
That's fine.
You can simply go to civicmedia.us slash shows, download the episodes there and listen to them at your leisure.
I really implore upon you to do so on last Saturday's episode, especially for a very good discussion on Venezuela, which we will be discussing more in the 10 o'clock hour.
But right now we are talking about what happened in Minneapolis yesterday with an ICE agent killing Renee.
I'm sorry, I just.
It is Renee Nicole Good.
I want to get her full name.
Renee Nicole Good, as she was in the video trying to get away from ICE agents, she was shot and killed yesterday.
And there has been speculation upon speculation.
We are learning more as more officials are talking about it.
But I brought in to bring Jim on to discuss legal ramifications of this and something that I was thinking about yesterday was what sort of recourse or redress can family municipalities
or states seek in a matter like this where one of their own is murdered in what seems to be by the video in a situation that didn't call for this sort of use of force.
So where do those groups go from here, Jim?
Yes.
Well, so one of the personal responsibility There it is, right?
One reasons for our justice system both civil and criminal and there are avenues here again We begin with the predicate which has yet to be determined what I was describing before what we're talking about fourth amendment These are constitutional principles and yes indeed they give Americans residents citizens rights to sue and also criminal prosecution Let's talk about both of those we talked before about
the Derek Chauvin matter again back in 2020 involving George Floyd it is entirely possible and when again I look at this at least initially that a murder allegations can be brought right charges that you have engaged in homicide why because your conduct is again objectively unreasonable it is not constitutional you did not have a reasonable basis to believe that you were an imminent
threat of your own loss of your own life or that of others.
And again, this is the Derek Chauvin matter once again, criminal prosecution by the state.
for a murder, and that can be both in the federal system and the state system.
That is one option.
Only the government can bring those kinds of lawsuits, but that's one form of accountability.
Again, it's premised upon the notion that this law enforcement officer or officers, if proven and shown by the facts, has violated the constitution that gives you that criminal predicate.
So that's the state.
There's also, as you indicated rightly, Greg, another option for the families.
Plainly Ms.
herself does not have this option.
She is dead, but her families do have a right to prosecute civilly on her behalf, pledging a violation of her civil rights, basically the deprivation of her right to life.
And again, that happens an awful lot.
We have seen that in virtue of all of these other cases.
And it's basically excessive force cases holding the police accountable under federal law.
and also some state laws but federal law in particular is one that of course I always think about through civil rights lawsuits you bring a civil action against the individual the police officer probably against others who may have been involved somehow in that decision making on the scene maybe even the police department itself if they have failed to train
Properly and you allege that they have engaged once again the same basic legal predicate that their actions are in violation of the Constitution they deprived Ms.
Good of her constitutional right to life and for that reason the Family should be compensated again hasten to add no such thing as compensation when you have a dead Person here.
You can't bring her back to life.
Yeah, but these are situations where courts and juries have a
great numbers of verdicts, large sums of money, including in the Derek Chauvin matter involving George Floyd and others for violations of the civil rights of that person now held by the family.
So criminal options here, which have to be looked at by local authorities, federal authorities, civil options also by the families and arguably others who may have been involved somehow in the deprivation of rights.
to life in that previously were held by Ms.
Good.
I will be interested to see how quickly that takes shape, especially in the face of all of the information we're getting right now.
And it feels, I don't know, for me personally, like I said earlier, it feels like it is going to be hard to find people to sit on a jury who might be able to show balance in the face of all of the rhetoric that's come out in the past, not even 24 hours.
And especially when you try to pose a case where it is a law enforcement officer or someone, you know, however you want to describe ICE.
there's always an immediate sympathy and or bias towards them.
So I'll be interested to see where that goes and how it plays forward.
But what we're going to take a moment, get you the top of the hour news, come back with Jim Santel, who's the host of amicus a law review.
And we're going to switch gears to Venezuela about the actions that took place last weekend by the Trump administration and how apparently we now have a new country where we are running.
And what that means for
national and international law, but don't go anywhere.
Still lots of great show ahead of your mid mornings on civic media.
My name is Greg Bach.
I'm your host.
Stay tuned.
Stay informed.
Stay close.
The national news cycle never stops.
but it can be hard to find news about your local community.
Civic Media is dedicated to providing quality local and state news coverage across Wisconsin.
With the Civic Media app, you can get notifications about local stories that matter to you and your community.
Find the free Civic Media app in your phone's app store and choose notifications from the menu to tell us what kind of news you want to hear about.
