Hannah Rosen

Is that a real thing?

Like, do federal officers have this kind of immunity that he's describing?

If Minnesota decides they want to charge this specific shooter with a crime and the federal government has already decided he didn't do anything wrong, what happens?

How does that unfold?

So this is a gray area.

It's like there's a lot of details to be hashed out in a situation like this.

Right.

And is it the kind of thing that would get adjudicated for years?

Or is it fairly clear, you know, they put out a warrant for the shooter's arrest?

Like, how does it unfold in general?

Right.

And as you've watched the administration respond to this particular case, have you seen them kind of preempt some of these arguments?

Because they're speaking in very specific language about force, the correct use of force, all this kind of stuff.

Right.

So they can spin a public narrative, but it doesn't necessarily affect or determine what what happens in the actual courts.

Exactly.

I guess I have a fundamental question, which is why is the law designed this way?

Like, why is it important for states to be able to hold the federal government accountable in certain cases?

So I have heard the administration put out statements to state officials, just sort of warning them against taking state action.

It's interesting because with law enforcement actions, at least most recently, it's been the opposite.