# Minneapolis ICE Shooting: The Legal Standard That Destroys the Media Narrative (Part 2) Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-j2eoGoiUA Recap page: https://rapidrecap.app/video/e-j2eoGoiUA Generated: 2026-01-30T19:04:35.609+00:00 --- ## Quick Overview The legal standard for excessive force claims, as emphasized by referencing *Connor v. Graham* and *Tennessee v. Garner*, dictates that officer conduct must be judged under the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard, which allows for mistakes made in tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving circumstances, rendering public sentiment irrelevant to legal principles. **Key Points:** - The legal standard for reviewing force used by law enforcement is the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, not the "substantive due process" standard used by lower courts in *Connor v. Graham*. - The *Connor v. Graham* case was remanded because lower courts applied the incorrect due process standard, meaning the Supreme Court did not rule on whether the force used against Graham was reasonable under the totality of circumstances. - The analysis emphasizes that the objective reasonableness standard allows for mistakes made in "circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving" (0:05). - In the specific Pretti shooting case, officers were operating under the "shared" information that Pretti was armed with a handgun (7:41), which justifies the use of deadly force under *Garner* if a threat is perceived. - The video argues that the officer who ultimately fired was looking right at the struggle, establishing that the perceived threat was immediate, even if the gun was disarmed moments before (8:11). - The use of deadly force by law enforcement is governed by *Tennessee v. Garner* (1985), which states that lawful and unlawful uses of lethal force are not the same as public notions of "right" and "wrong" (17:38). - Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 111 makes it a crime for individuals to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with officers performing their official duties (14:55). ![Screenshot at 0:04: Text overlay detailing the legal standard, noting that the standard has a tolerance for mistakes made in "circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving..."](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/e-j2eoGoiUA/00-00-04.jpg) **Context:** This video, presented by SCOTUS Bar Attorney Andrew Branca, is the second part of an analysis focusing on the legal standards governing excessive force claims against law enforcement, specifically contrasting public sentiment with established legal principles derived from Supreme Court cases like *Connor v. Graham* and *Tennessee v. Garner*. The speaker uses the sequence of events in the shooting of Alex Pretti to illustrate how the objective reasonableness standard, which accounts for the rapidly evolving nature of police encounters, applies, particularly focusing on the shared knowledge among officers regarding the presence of a weapon. ## Detailed Analysis The speaker begins by reiterating that the key legal standard for reviewing the reasonableness of police force under the Fourth Amendment allows for mistakes in tense and uncertain situations, citing the remand in *Connor v. Graham* due to the lower courts using the wrong due process standard. The analysis then shifts to the Pretti shooting, highlighting that during the struggle, Pretti’s jacket was pulled up, exposing a holstered handgun (7:25). The officer who removed the handgun moved away, and crucially, the officer who eventually fired was looking right at the struggle (8:11), suggesting he had knowledge of the weapon, even if Pretti had been disarmed just moments before. The speaker stresses that Pretti was armed (8:09), and the officers acted under the shared information that he possessed a gun. The discussion then grounds the analysis in *Tennessee v. Garner* (1985), establishing that lawful and unlawful uses of lethal force are distinct from public opinion. Furthermore, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 111 criminalizes forcible assault, resistance, opposition, impediment, intimidation, or interference with federal law enforcement officers performing their duties (14:55). The speaker concludes that if Pretti was resisting or interfering with officers attempting to detain him (16:26), the misdemeanor violation could escalate to a felony if there was physical contact or intent to commit another felony, which the video evidence suggests occurred. The crucial point is that the officers were justified in believing Pretti was armed because they knew he had a gun when the struggle began, and this knowledge wasn't necessarily negated by the gun being disarmed later, especially if that disarmament wasn't clearly communicated to all officers. ### Force Standard Application - The *Connor v. Graham* outcome confirmed the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard applies to use of force - This standard tolerates mistakes in tense, uncertain, and evolving circumstances - Lower courts wrongly used substantive due process (0:17, 0:23) ### The Pretti Encounter - Pretti was initially obstructing officers attempting to maintain a perimeter (14:20) - He was armed with a handgun when the struggle began (8:09, 11:41) - Officers shouted "Gun" or "He's got a gun" (3:04) ### Officer Action & Knowledge - The officer who fired was looking at the struggle and knew Pretti was armed when he drew his weapon (8:11) - The key is the information known *at the time* of the use of force, not later (8:48) ### Federal Statute Violation (18 USC 111) - Crime applies to forcible assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with officers performing official duties - No "protester's privilege" provides relief (14:55) - Physical contact or intent to commit another felony elevates the misdemeanor to a felony punishable by up to 8 years (15:51) ### Garner Precedent on Deadly Force - Deadly force is legal if officers have probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, even if it is later proven unreasonable to prevent escape (17:12) - Lawful vs. unlawful uses of lethal force are not based on public notions of right/wrong (17:38) ![Screenshot at 0:00: A slide displaying text emphasizing the legal standard allows tolerance for mistakes in tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving circumstances.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/e-j2eoGoiUA/00-00-00.jpg) ![Screenshot at 0:17: Text overlay explaining the outcome of \*Connor v. Graham\* was a remand because lower courts used the wrong standard \(substantive due process instead of Fourth Amendment\).](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/e-j2eoGoiUA/00-00-17.jpg) ![Screenshot at 3:04: A frame from video footage showing multiple officers struggling with Pretti on the ground, with one officer having drawn a semi-automatic handgun.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/e-j2eoGoiUA/00-03-04.jpg) ![Screenshot at 7:24: Text detailing that during the struggle, Pretti’s jacket was pulled up, exposing the holstered handgun, which is when the officer removed it.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/e-j2eoGoiUA/00-07-24.jpg) ![Screenshot at 17:54: Text quoting \*Tennessee v. Garner\* \(1985\) stating that lawful and unlawful uses of lethal force are not the same as public notions of "right" and "wrong".](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/e-j2eoGoiUA/00-17-54.jpg)