Minnesota Democrats Choose ‘Rage Politics’ Over Sanity, Turley Says

Law professor Jonathan Turley joins ‘Fox & Friends’ to discuss the ICE-involved shooting in Minneapolis that left one woman dead and the varying responses from local and federal officials. “It was an outright murder.” Those words from Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) were echoed by Democratic leaders from coast to coast almost immediately after an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, 37, as she sped toward him in a vehicle.

Goldman has become the Madame Defarge of American politics — the character from Charles Dickens’ “A Tale of Two Cities” who knitted as she gleefully called for the heads of aristocrats and counterrevolutionaries during the French Revolution. Goldman has made a career of dismissing due process for his political opponents while engaging in willful blindness toward the conduct of his allies. He has denied the existence of Antifa as an organization, while also claiming he has seen no evidence of an increase in attacks on ICE officers.

He apparently needed no further proof to declare this officer a murderer: “It was an outright murder. This officer needs to not only be fired and suspended but — based on the video — charged.” The discussion quickly shifted to political rhetoric around ICE, defunding, and accountability.

Turley notes that the video does not by itself establish guilt or murder. Under governing case law, an officer may use lethal force when facing an imminent threat to his life or the lives of fellow officers or third parties. In this case, the officer had a fraction of a second to decide whether to fire after Good sped toward him. Good appears to have been attempting to flee; flight alone is not a justification for lethal force. However, when a suspect accelerates toward an officer, the vehicle may be treated as a weapon, permitting the use of lethal force in self-defense.

Turley argues that Goldman is fully aware of past case law supporting the officer, while also acknowledging he faces political opponents. The article emphasizes the risk of leveraging anger for political gain. The discussion also references broader political dynamics, including other officials who condemned ICE actions without waiting for investigations, and the challenge of maintaining due process in heated times.

The piece frames a broader pattern: Democrats may align with defund-ICE rhetoric and urge impeachment or other aggressive responses, even as investigations proceed. It references critics and supporters alike, highlighting how media and local leaders can influence public perception through strong rhetoric that can outrun the facts.

The narrative suggests that when a city’s leadership responds with swift condemnation, the result can be political theater that shapes public safety policy without full context. The author cautions readers to prioritize due process and factual reporting over rapid, rage-driven narratives.

In a climate of rage politics versus rational debate, Turley urges readers to demand careful investigation, fair accountability, and a measured public dialogue on policing, immigration enforcement, and safety. The piece concludes by warning that rage-driven politics can undermine long-term public trust and objective policy making.