Professor Turley Dings Minneapolis Mayor Frey for Wanting to be Included in ICE Shooting Investigation
“we’re going to have a lot of investigation going forward, but people need to be clear what the standard is”
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley recently appeared on FOX News to talk about the ICE shooting in Minnesota. Turley had plenty of criticism for Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey.
Frey has said that he wants to be included in the investigation of the shooting, but as Turley notes, Frey was one of the first to declare the incident a murder, making him one of the last people who should expect to be involved in the process.
Turley also suggests that the videos and legal precedent are on the side of the ICE agent in this case.
Transcript via Real Clear Politics:
INGRAHAM: Oh, yes, they were already convicting, they are convicting that ICE officer. Here to discuss Jonathan Turley, constitutional law expert, Fox News Contributor. Jonathan, Frey is demanding that the state be involved. Walz is accusing, though, agents of contaminating the scene, the crime scene. So what law takes precedent here — precedence here? And are they within their right to say, we must be involved?
JONATHAN TURLEY, GWU LAW PROFESSOR: No, they can ask to be involved, but they have no basis upon to insist on being involved. This is a federal investigation involving a federal shooting, and they do not have to be involved. I don’t expect they will be. And possibly the worst possible person to call for that type of cooperation is Mayor Frey, who soon after the shooting announced that this officer was a murderer and used today to say that he really wasn’t injured.
Now, I haven’t been in his kitchen, and I haven’t seen Frey’s fridge, but this does not strike me as a kitchen encounter. When you look at that video, it is a very significant collision with this officer. And the video, most importantly captures something that’s missing on the internet as people slow down this video to the point that it seems like these officers could have gotten coffee and debated what they were going to do next. I mean, this really captures how it was a fraction of a second. The key here is to look at this from the perspective of the officer, the motivations of Good do not matter. It’s her actions that matter.
So the question is, what did the officer see in that fraction of a second? That standard favors the officer. Now, we’re going to have a lot of investigation going forward, but people need to be clear what the standard is. To say that the officer was reasonable, does not necessarily mean that the officer was right. You could still disagree with the use of lethal force. But the question is, was this within the parameters, the discretion of the officer? That standard favors the officer, in my view, from this video.
Watch the segment below:
🚨 JUST IN: @JonathanTurley pushes back on demands for local involvement in the federal shooting investigation:
“This is a federal investigation. They have no basis to insist on being involved.”
“The worst person to call for cooperation is Mayor Fry — who rushed to call the… pic.twitter.com/3nimyHmOBa
— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) January 10, 2026
Although it’s not included in this video, Turley went on to say that Democrats will try to ride this wave of rage right into the midterms, which is exactly correct. This has become the left’s playbook.
Featured image via Twitter/X.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Frey is a turd and the clowns of Minneapolis were stupid to reelect him,
Frey’s involvement should be the extent of his collaboration with the terrorists.
Frey is a wannabe Beto O’Roark, which is a loose cannon.
No, they weren’t, because remember who the alternative was. Frey was the sane candidate. Relatively speaking.
They should have voted for none of the above.
Not voting is the same as giving half a vote to the greater of the two weevils.
Given the choice of:
A. Cray Cray incompetent sitting Mayor who let the lefty wokiesta mob destroy a police station and let his city burn
OR
B. Even worse alternative
The correct answer is:
C. Sell up/pack the remainder and go somewhere sane.
Unfortunately many people allow themselves to be trapped by nostalgia, a job, concern for a stubborn relative who refuses to move and far beyond just Minneapolis.
Well the alternative would have been worse. This is a horrible example of voting for the “lesser of two evils.” Unfortunately neither is/was/or would be good.
Hey, I voted for the granny killer last year, because of who the alternative was. Remember the slogan campaigning for Edwin Edwards: “Vote for the crook; it’s important.”
Those who think a seething Karen is a domestic terrorist have a much clearer picture.
Do you know the definition of domestic terrorism?
Look it up.
Criminal action, particularly violence, in furtherance of a political goal.
Like obstructing law enforcement attempting to catch criminals because you oppose those criminals being punished. Then attempting to run over one of those law enforcement agents.
Was. Not is. She’s a dead domestic terrorist. Who tried to kill a federal agent. Because she supported foreign criminals over her own countrymen. And now she’s dead because of that. Too bad.
Yes, now she’s a good terrorist
I don’t believe she tried to kill a federal agent. But that doesn’t matter. What matters is that what she did put the agent’s life in danger, or, at least, caused the officer to believe his life was in danger. This is sufficient cause to react as if she was trying to kill him.
What she did was akin to shooting a firearm in the officer’s direction. Even if there was no intention to hit him, and even if the bullet didn’t come close to him, the officer could still legitimately respond with lethal force because the act appears to the officer to be a lethal threat.
She aimed rhe car at him and accelerated towards him. Whatever her intent was, it is irrelevant. The agent perceived that she was trying to kill him, and that is sufficient.
As many have noted, she cut her wheels to the right to steer away from the officer (even if unsuccessfully). This in no way exonerates her or condemns the officer, as I’ve already explained. But there is no evidence that she either intentionally steered at the officer nor that she intended to hit him.
Actually I don’t think she cut her wheel to avoid him. I think it was either just the result of her driving on snow and her wheels spinning and her trying to course correct back into the officer OR she saw the gun coming up and was trying to dodge the shot.
I agree with Irish. I think it’s possible she intended to get the vehicle to lurch forward without striking anybody though that would still be an extremely reckless maneuver. However the wheels spun out on the pavement and she then turned to try to control the skid.
Nina Jankowicz asked us to remind you that despite your post-date assurances, you never called her back. Also, she wanted to find out if you still had that cute bunny.
“Cigarette” Butz doesn’t think a butch Lefty trained in anti-ICE tactics who spent the day blocking ICE vehicles, harassing ICE agents, and eventually trying to drill one with her car is a terrorist.
You suck at this.
I got a huge laugh when Small Frey claimed he is anti-crime. He let rioters burn down a police station in 2020. And, considering that Officer Derek Chauvin was railroaded by the Hennepin County prosecutors and the Minneapolis PD, they have no place being involved in the prosecution, either. Finally, with Walz and Ellison being as corrupt as they are, the state of Minnesota will not be invited to join.
Oh, I think that Frey very much should have a role. I suggest defendant
Which investigation, for what? Somebody want to pendant about the actual varities of investigation, charge, and prosecution here?
— I think an interal investigton of procedures n so on stays inside ICE, under DHS. They can impose administrative penalties, or refer to others for somthing else based on what they find.
— A federal referral, like for civil rights violation or similar, gets referred to FBI, from there a recommendation to DOJ, decision to prosecute…
— “Murder” is a state crime; they get to start a case and investigate. Not sure they need anyone’s permission to do that.
Since the Mini-Soda-Mafie has loudly proclaimed murder, murder, murder, maybe they should spin up a state murder investigation of their own, and own it.
They don’t need permission to investigate, but the feds will not cooperate with them in any way. Why should they? The state and city have the constitutional right not to cooperate with the feds, but that works both ways, so the feds should stand on the same right not to cooperate with them.
However, if their investigation concludes that it was murder, as it is likely to do if they’re running it, and they try to arrest the agent, they will run into a problem. As a federal agent engaged in his official duties he was effectively immune from state law, with some minor and irrelevant exceptions; if they try to indict him he will immediately move to have the case transferred to federal court, and once it’s there the US Attorney will dismiss it.
Milhouse, I think you just outlined the game plan. Indict him for murder –after a show investigation — get overruled.
Campaign on Trump letting a murderer off, ICE being murderers, etc.
I mean, Trump wouldn’t even be involved. This is basic operation of law. Federal agent in the course of his duties. He falls under federal jurisdiction, not state. If the state tries to charge him, it gets removed to federal court on the agent’s motion. That’s just the law. Nothing to do with Trump.
Won’t stop the TDS riddled goons from making the claim though.
True. But if we’re at the point where we’re worried that, regardless of truth, law or reality, they’re just going to make stuff up, they’re never stopped by anything, ever. They don’t need to have a game plan or to trick/trap Trump into anything. They’ll just lie.
And in any case, what’s the alternative? Ignore the law and let the lynch mob that is Minnesota take an innocent federal agent doing his job?
Yeah. There’s always at least enforcing the law as is; tagging / dirtying up a person, party, or policy; encumbering n exhausting the other guys; extracting some gain directly like money, consent decree, etc. Plus, of course and always, the theater. The action is never the point, fodder for the story is the point.
We’d get a lot less playing to the cheap seats if more people would decide to not be the cheap seats. I am not hopeful.
Note that the very same people now loudly complaining that the federal government isn’t cooperating with them in their investigations into ICE operations are the same people who have official policies preventing their agencies from cooperating with federal officials in the enforcement of the country’s immigration laws. If they had imagined for a moment that they might possibly have a reason to demand cooperation from the feds in any matter related to immigration, maybe they should have considered cooperating with the feds on immigration enforcement, which would have provided them with a seat at the table. But they rejected that seat, surrendering any claim they may have had to it.
I do not understand the basis for you to say, ” The state and city have the constitutional right not to cooperate with the feds …”
The States are also sovereign. They are not political subdivisions of the Federal government. The Feds can’t forcibly compel a State to do its bidding. The Feds can create incentives both +/- for cooperation.
Exactly. This is one of The 13 American Arguments — lovely book — what do we want to do at what level of government?
Helpful, thank you. Not entirely clear about these bits:
“However, if their investigation concludes that it was murder … and they try to arrest the agent … As a federal agent engaged in his official duties he was effectively immune from state law.”
So, the notion of “qualified immunity” here? Problem is we have officials do things officially that would be illegal done as private citizens. So, they get “qualified immunity”, something like “stuff we’re requiring them to do as our agents, they can’t be individually prosecuted for.”
They’re both immune — not on them if official; and it’s qualified — only for in bounds behavior. Lots of piecemeal wrapping around “official” and “out of bounds” as that gets played out in the courts.
That notion gets extra entertaining when agencies n authorities extend it to themselves, or someone charges presidents. Ordering assassinations is legally fine as part of presidential duties, not so much if don Don has someone whacked personally.
President is interesting, extreme case given massive scope of authorities, plus roles of at least head of state, head of government, unitary executive, nominal head of a party, politician, head / candidate of a campaign for an office, and citizen.
“if they try to indict him he will immediately move to have the case transferred to federal court, and once it’s there the US Attorney will dismiss it.”
I don’t get how a state murder indictment gets transferred to a federal court. Immunity argument is federal for a federal agent (I think), conducting federal duties. So, different issue gets raised, possibly overriding the ?standing of? ?authority for? the murder charge?
I am pretty sure that what allows this is the Supremacy Clause. He is a Federal LEO enforcing Federal statutes which means his actions should be judged in a Federal court, not a state court. While I’m not sure of all the ins and outs, I don’t think this falls into the category of ‘qualified immunity’ which I believe has more to do with immunity from civil actions based on official administrative actions. Interference with Federal LEOs, including putting them in bodily danger, is governed by Federal statutes. Basically the officer is not immune from prosecution for the shooting but he is likely to prevail in a claim that he was acting in self-defense. Given other circumstances he could face Federal or state charges.
Bill Shipley, former AUSA writing under the pen name Shipwreckedcrew, has a good article laying out the law and facts around the case.
https://shipwreckedcrew.substack.com/p/minneapolis-is-not-even-a-close-call
Bierce, this is not about qualified immunity. It’s about 28 USC 1442: