Minneapolis Shooting [spelling in title corrected]

[TBoneTX 48,904]

Further to Pooky's post above is the following.  After reading the full thing, explain your reasoning for agreeing or disagreeing.  This thread is great because of the diverse opinions from so many contributors.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Top Democrats Are Agitating For Insurrection And Political Vigilantism

 

Democrats seem to think that laws and policies they don't like can be thwarted by an angry mob or an insurrectionist governor.  [...]

 

https://thefederalist.com/2026/01/08/top-democrats-are-agitating-for-insurrection-and-political-vigilantism/

[TBoneTX 48,904]

From a one-time Obama-supporting leftist, in an article cited by RealClearPolitics.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Democrats:  What is Your List of Demands?

 

[...] It's always the same story.  One side believes itself to be the "chosen" ones, morally superior and absolved of all responsibility, that they can be as violent as they want, act out however they please, and all of us must be held hostage to their unhinged emotions, going on ten years now.  [...]

 

https://www.sashastone.com/p/dear-democrats-what-is-your-list

[Crazy Cat 46,034]

Walz and Frey are insurrections, imo.  They are rebelling against Federal law.

[S2N 650]

The ultimate question here isn’t if the victim acted correctly (driving off in your car while a LEO is holding onto a handle is obviously not okay…)

 

Its whether the use of deadly force was justified under the law.

 

Ignoring the specifics of the agency involved, I think the normal expectation would be you shoot at the tires not the person if you think they’re trying to ram you.

 

I’d like to see an independent congressional commissioned investigation because I don’t have confidence in the Bondi-era DOJ to not put out a politicized propaganda piece, but there’s also issues with allowing local cops to investigate federal LEOs. That plus I suspect whatever lessons there are to be learned from this can be applied to other cases. Fully aware it’s not going to happen, but one can dream.

[Crazy Cat 46,034]

18 minutes ago, S2N said:

I think the normal expectation would be you shoot at the tires not the person if you think they’re trying to ram you.

In a split second?  That is only in the movies....not real life.  The officer acted within the law, imo, by neutralizing the threat.   

 

Walz and Frey are insurrectionists.

Edited 7 hours ago by Crazy Cat

[S2N 650]

9 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

In a split second?  That is only in the movies....not real life.  The officer acted within the law. 

Not enough is known. There’s a lot of factors that go into use of force from both a legal and moral standpoint, but the use of non-lethal force in a split second over lethal force isn’t just a movies thing.

 

The question is if a reasonable person knowing all the same things the officer knew would conclude killing another person was necessary for him to save his own life and the life of those around him (I’m sure I’m not stating it exactly, but that’s the idea.)

 

From what I saw, even if I agree it could be reasonable to use lethal force for the first shot because of the split second question, I would not have concluded that it was necessary for me to fire two additional shots into the vehicle after I was out of the way and prevent a doctor who was on the scene from giving treatment in order to save my own life.

 

That said, we only have one angle of it from a cell phone video. Hopefully there’s body cams or other evidence that can provide a clearer picture of the exact sequence of events.

 

Reasonable people can disagree on what’s reasonable. That’s why there’s investigations, grand juries, and juries.

Edited 8 hours ago by S2N

[Crazy Cat 46,034]

8 minutes ago, S2N said:

That said, we only have one angle of it from a cell phone video.

That is not true....there is video showing the officer in front of the vehicle when she accelerated, and another video showing she struck the officer with her car. 

Edited 7 hours ago by Crazy Cat

[S2N 650]

8 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

That is not true....

Sorry — I was going off of the newspapers that only show the one cell video and talk about it — out of the states right now and haven’t been following TV news where the other videos appear to be circulating. My bad.

 

How many do we have now? From what I could tell it’s the cell video and two low-quality home surveillance videos? 
 

Looked through the additional ones I could find and they don’t really change my overall point that it’s hard to tell what what happened.

Edited 7 hours ago by S2N

[Crazy Cat 46,034]

1 minute ago, S2N said:

Sorry — I was going off of the newspapers that only show the one cell video and talk about it — out of the states right now and haven’t been following TV news where the other videos appear to be circulating. My bad.

 

How many do we have now? From what I could tell it’s the cell video and two low-quality home surveillance videos? 

I'm sure there is other video.  The officer who was struck was actually videoing the driver just before she accelerated.  I am hoping for a thorough investigation.

[yuna628 9,954]

10 minutes ago, S2N said:

Sorry — I was going off of the newspapers that only show the one cell video and talk about it — out of the states right now and haven’t been following TV news where the other videos appear to be circulating. My bad.

 

How many do we have now? From what I could tell it’s the cell video and two low-quality home surveillance videos? 

There are several, not the best quality imo. There's been a few media outlets that have analyzed the videos and cannot conclude she struck him.  There have also been faked videos, sadly. There are some that have attempted to speed up or slow down the videos to give it whatever 'favored' outcome. I don't feel this gives us clear 100% beyond reasonable doubt in the matter. Some might hedge the line to say the car may have potentially brushed him, if only because he put himself in that scenario against training. But it is not that I am being unsympathetic to the officer, who had been struck by a vehicle in the past and that experience may have weighed his decisions. He may have felt he was going to be run over (why did his colleague give a contrary command for her to move then?) and there may be people that would find his split second conclusion, reasonable. In either case there is still no evidence to suggest that he was injured in any way. He was not crushed, killed, laying on the ground, or had any noticeable injuries. He was not sent to the hospital. He walked away from the scene. I find claims and hyperbole of him being viciously run over a little insulting to those officers, including one that died just this week who were killed in the line of duty from genuinely being struck by a vehicle due to negligence or intent. 

Edited 7 hours ago by yuna628

[S2N 650]

3 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

I'm sure there is other video.  The officer who was struck was actually videoing the driver just before she accelerated.  I am hoping for a thorough investigation.

I’m sure there is as well.
 

I also don’t think there’s any evidence he was hit yet, unless something has come out in the last 24 hours that I missed. The videos I’ve seen seem to suggest he wasn’t, but hoping to get more so there’s a full accounting, wherever that lands.

 

Its also looks like he was dragged in a routine traffic stop last year. That probably had an impact on his state of mind which would of course impact the analysis here.

 

My initial thought on this is that it could go either way on legality, but there’s probably a more systemic problem this represents. The loss of one life is a tragedy, but if there’s reforms that can come from it, that’s where the investigation comes into play.

[Crazy Cat 46,034]

8 minutes ago, S2N said:

I also don’t think there’s any evidence he was hit yet,

Yes, there is.

8 minutes ago, S2N said:

had an impact on his state of mind which would of course impact the analysis here.

and that right there is the key.....If he felt his life was in danger, lethal force is authorized.

 

"

1. Deadly force should not be used against persons whose actions are a threat solely to themselves or property unless an individual poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others in close proximity."

Edited 7 hours ago by Crazy Cat

[S2N 650]

5 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

Yes, there is.

Could you please provide a source? All the papers are reporting that hasn’t been verified.

 

5 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

and that right there is the key.....If he felt his life was in danger, lethal force is authorized.

Not exactly. If a reasonable person in his position knowing all the facts he did would reach the same conclusion, then it’s authorized. He could believe his life was in danger and it still be a crime because his belief was not reasonable.

Edited 7 hours ago by S2N

[S2N 650]

15 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

Deadly force should not be used against persons whose actions are a threat solely to themselves or property unless an individual poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others in close proximity."

And the question is not whether he believed that. Given the fact he was dragged at a traffic stop, I’m pretty sure he did. That’s awful and a tragedy.

 

The question is if a reasonable third-party would believe that. From what has come out, I don’t think there’s enough evidence to make that conclusion yet. It’s also hampered by the fact that reasonable people of goodwill can and do disagree, which like I said, is why we have investigations, grand juries, and juries.

 

The taking of life by the government is always a tragedy, even when justified, because it’s the use of the supreme power of the state against someone with no recourse. A full investigation doesn’t just take his word that he was afraid for his life/serious injury. It looks to see if that belief is justified. That’s what we need to take place now.

Edited 7 hours ago by S2N

[Boiler 48,464]

We forgot the privilege