Minneapolis Shooting [spelling in title corrected]

[Crazy Cat 46,042]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

 

 

 

Certainly looks, to me,  like she struck him.

[S2N 652]

1 minute ago, Crazy Cat said:

I have seen a video which does show he was struck.

 

I keep saying this, but once it’s reported by reliable sources, I’ll be the first to admit that he was struck. With all the misinformation online right now, I don’t really put much faith in videos until they’ve been validated.

It could be this was completely justified, but even if he was struck that doesn’t necessarily mean that it was. We just need to let this play out.

[S2N 652]

3 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

Certainly looks, to me,  like she struck him.

Possibly, but we also don’t see that in the video. It could also be him jumping out of the way, which is what it looks like some of the other videos show.

 

We’re making a ton of assumptions here off an incomplete picture.

Edited Friday at 07:35 PM by S2N

[yuna628 9,954]

19 minutes ago, hplusj said:

We keep circling back to this.  

 

She didn't have to hit him.  She hit the gas, with an armed officer in front of her car.  

 

The circling of erroneous information online that these asre "masked men" and not LE, that she had every right to her life and to "flee", "run", etc. all dodge the obvious fact.

 

She pressed down on the gas pedal, with an armed officer in front of her car.

What do you do when one officer shouts get out of the car and the other shout to move the car and another points a gun? Again, I'm pretty certain we'd each know what we'd do nor do I think we'd put ourselves in that situation to begin with. But this doesn't seem to be a very bright individual, way over their head. I don't disagree that the officer may have felt his actions reasonable, but I don't know if the evidence supports those feelings. We will only know that in court eventually, long after the screaming on TV stops.

 

I don't know that any of us believe that she was intentionally trying to run him over nor do I think evidence supports this. There is however training, and that training and burden is on officers to not place themselves in front of a vehicle (though they may place themselves at various safer angles) because of various case precedents that have come to court. This is different from situations where an officer is dragged in a window (which is what happened to him previously) or is very clearly and maliciously struck. Officers in the city have been in these situations, and there are many where it hasn't gone favorably for them in court. He may have felt he was going to be struck, but that doesn't mean he was struck. We will certainly know in court. I would like these officers to sometimes handle situations better and be safe while doing so. I would also like protestors to handle themselves better as well, it is clear many are naive and are shocked at results.

 

A small example for you guys. My husband was stopped at a red light yesterday. He observed someone blow through the intersection from the right, high rate of speed, running that red. His light had turned green so he proceeded with the rest of the traffic into the roadway, and had to make the quick decision to slam on the brakes (and of course so did everyone else) when the vehicle which had been behind the light runner, was an undercover cop (put on lights but not sirens) and then barreled into the roadway. He certainly did not want to hit anyone, but the officer made a decision which could have caused a T-bone multi-car accident in order to chase the guy. He could have seriously hurt himself or others. Maybe the officer was not thinking about that at the time, but it was a decision that was risky.

[Crazy Cat 46,042]

4 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

He may have felt he was going to be struck, but that doesn't mean he was struck.

You haven't seen the video which shows he was struck and pushed back? 

[Dashinka 26,439]

3 hours ago, S2N said:

I live in an area that had increased ICE presence: I don’t think the protestors are doing anything positive, but the ICE presence is actually impacting legal immigrants as well. The gripe is that they’re going beyond the laws Congress wrote or enforcing them in a reckless way that puts US citizens at risk for detention or at the very least economic loss. Not that any of the protestors in the streets could explain it that way.

 

As an example, I’m friends with a few local Central American immigrants who are naturalized citizens that work in upscale bars around me. They uber to and from work now rather than driving because they’re afraid of getting detained because the push in our area has been very broad and they don’t have passports even if naturalized. Ubering to work today as a restaurant worker, even if well paid, isn’t economically sustainable.

 

I don’t see the solution as getting physically between LEO’s and houses (that’s stupid for any number of reasons), but the grip is that there’s a very strong sense in local *legal* immigrant communities that the people who came here legally are also at risk.

Seems then ICE is playing into the Democrats sanctuary city/state playbook.  Why is it Walz is now calling for cooperation of the feds, but then tells his police to not cooperate with them, or at least not ICE.  It is still useless for these protestors to protest the enforcement side IMO.

[Ban Hammer 14,876]

16 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

What do you do when one officer shouts get out of the car and the other shout to move the car and another points a gun? Again, I'm pretty certain we'd each know what we'd do nor do I think we'd put ourselves in that situation to begin with. But this doesn't seem to be a very bright individual, way over their head. I don't disagree that the officer may have felt his actions reasonable, but I don't know if the evidence supports those feelings. We will only know that in court eventually, long after the screaming on TV stops.

 

I don't know that any of us believe that she was intentionally trying to run him over nor do I think evidence supports this. There is however training, and that training and burden is on officers to not place themselves in front of a vehicle (though they may place themselves at various safer angles) because of various case precedents that have come to court. This is different from situations where an officer is dragged in a window (which is what happened to him previously) or is very clearly and maliciously struck. Officers in the city have been in these situations, and there are many where it hasn't gone favorably for them in court. He may have felt he was going to be struck, but that doesn't mean he was struck. We will certainly know in court. I would like these officers to sometimes handle situations better and be safe while doing so. I would also like protestors to handle themselves better as well, it is clear many are naive and are shocked at results.

 

A small example for you guys. My husband was stopped at a red light yesterday. He observed someone blow through the intersection from the right, high rate of speed, running that red. His light had turned green so he proceeded with the rest of the traffic into the roadway, and had to make the quick decision to slam on the brakes (and of course so did everyone else) when the vehicle which had been behind the light runner, was an undercover cop (put on lights but not sirens) and then barreled into the roadway. He certainly did not want to hit anyone, but the officer made a decision which could have caused a T-bone multi-car accident in order to chase the guy. He could have seriously hurt himself or others. Maybe the officer was not thinking about that at the time, but it was a decision that was risky.

in the first, i'd have just put my hands up at that point
in the 3rd, i'd have waited as i'd been expecting either a cop or another car chasing them (possible drive by or gangs having a dispute)

Edited Friday at 07:52 PM by Ban Hammer

[Dashinka 26,439]

15 minutes ago, S2N said:

Possibly, but we also don’t see that in the video. It could also be him jumping out of the way, which is what it looks like some of the other videos show.

 

We’re making a ton of assumptions here off an incomplete picture.

It sounded like someone being hit to me, but I agree, that is not evident on the video.  I have been to scenes where people were hit by a car, and the sound was very similar.

[speedster 60]

2 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

 

Well well well. It know appears she was a pain professional protester and on the ICE watch list.

 

Renee Nicole Good part of 'ICE Watch' group, DHS sources say

 

Renee Nicole Good part of 'ICE Watch' group, DHS sources say

https://www.foxnews.com/us/renee-nicole-good-part-ice-watch-group-dhs-sources-say

 wow never knew she deserved the death penalty for that

professional protester, do you have financial proof of that?

[S2N 652]

5 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Seems then ICE is playing into the Democrats sanctuary city/state playbook.  Why is it Walz is now calling for cooperation of the feds, but then tells his police to not cooperate with them, or at least not ICE.  It is still useless for these protestors to protest the enforcement side IMO.

The theory is that the priorities of local cops are different than the federal government: local cops care a lot more about victims from local crime being willing to be witnesses in court, and Stephen Miller doesn’t, to be blunt.

 

There’s probably a better middle way beyond deputizing local LE to enforce immigration, which I think would likely lead to unintended negative consequences, and having local cops more or less do nothing.

[Crazy Cat 46,042]

6 minutes ago, speedster said:

wow never knew she deserved the death penalty for that

Striking an officer with a deadly weapon will result in poor outcomes....every time.

[hplusj 590]

12 minutes ago, speedster said:

 wow never knew she deserved the death penalty for that

professional protester, do you have financial proof of that?

Over the top rhetoric is not helpful here.  It wasn't the "death penalty", it was a tragic consequence of thinking she could insert herself in an enforcement operation.  

 

Someone else asked what to do when receiving conflicting commands from officers --a theory gaining popularity I guess, although none of the videos show an officer drawing a gun before she took action.  The answer, again, is to not hit the gas pedal.  It is to comply with the nearest command, which every video shows is for her to repeatedly step out of the vehicle.

 

Again, the gas pedal was not the right choice.

[S2N 652]

6 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

Striking an officer with a deadly weapon will result in poor outcomes....every time.

If she die in fact hit him (which I maintain is unclear), agree it’s incredibly stupid and your comment is the practical outcome of it.

 

I also think the more likely outcome than anything is that this goes to civil court, and we’ll see how strong the qualified immunity protections are before it gets to a civil jury.

 

They’ll likely get the shooting thrown out on qualified immunity, and then the only question that will go to trial will be if law enforcement can prevent immediate medical care to a person who has been shot.

 

Thats just my prognosticating though.

[Crazy Cat 46,042]

For the benefit of those who haven't seen the video of the officer being hit and pushed back:

 

 

[S2N 652]

4 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

For the benefit of those who haven't seen the video of the officer being hit and pushed back:

 

 

Thanks for sharing. Let’s see if it checks out. Looks pretty inconsistent with the other videos that have been verified, but if it’s real, that’d likely justify the first shot in my mind.
 

Still would leave question of the other two shots and denying the doctor access, but it would at least make a starting point of the conversation everyone could agree on.