Minneapolis Shooting [spelling in title corrected]

[S2N 655]

31 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

If he feared for his life in that split second, this is self defense.  Game over..... It's actually cut and dry.  Add, to the facts. that he actually hit him.

That’s not the law (at least from a civil liability side; criminal is more complex.)

 

People can have irrational fear for their lives. Most of the cases where the government loses and is held liable are LEOs who in good faith feared for their lives where a rational observer wouldn’t have.

Edited 7 hours ago by S2N

[Crazy Cat 46,046]

33 minutes ago, S2N said:

That’s not the law (at least from a civil liability side; criminal is more complex.)

 

People can have irrational fear for their lives. Most of the cases where the government loses and is held liable are LEOs who in good faith feared for their lives where a rational observer wouldn’t have.

 Other cases are irrelevant here.  Was the officer supposed to wait until he was under the tires before fearing for his life and taking action?   It's about criminal law.  I'm sure her family will try to bring a civil lawsuit....but I don't think the Federal officials will charge him criminally, and I don't think the state can charge him criminally.

 

https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force

 

"

1. Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle. Firearms may not be discharged from a moving vehicle except in exigent circumstances. In these situations, an officer must have an articulable reason for this use of deadly force.

Edited 7 hours ago by Crazy Cat

[Crazy Cat 46,046]

45 minutes ago, S2N said:

People can have irrational fear for their lives.

Any REASONABLE person placed in the shoes of the officer would likely conclude that a lunging vehicle posed a threat of serious injury.....pretty cut and dry, imo.

 

Walz and Frey should be charged with incitement.  They know ICE is not leaving, yet they have never told the activists to stop interfering with federal law enforcement actions.  They are defying federal law.  Walz (a sore loser) and Frey are insurrectionists who are encouraging activists to defy federal law.  This is the wrong approach.  If you don't like the laws, get them changed.

 

The officer was performing his duty.  He was legally documenting a stationary vehicle and its occupant for the record.....until she drove forward.....and hit him.  When the car started moving, the driver became a threat.  

Edited 7 hours ago by Crazy Cat

[S2N 655]

14 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

That IS the law.

A claim that a law enforcement officer used excessive force during

a stop or arrest is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, which re-

quires that the force deployed be objectively reasonable from “the per-

spective of a reasonable officer at the scene. The inquiry into the reasonableness of police force requires analyzing the “totality of the circumstances.” That analysis demands “careful attention to the facts and circumstances” relating to the incident. 

 

Barnes v. Felix

I omitted the internal citations. This is the most current civil law standard. The ruling was specifically overruling a 5th circuit analysis that used “moment of threat” rather than “totality of the circumstances.” Obviously the specifics of that case are going to be different here. They all are.

 

Its not what he thought, but what a reasonable LEO would have thought, and there’s disagreement as to that.
 

5 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

Any REASONABLE person placed in the shoes of the officer would likely conclude that a lunging vehicle posed a threat of serious injury.....pretty cut and dry, imo.

I posted a WaPo article earlier that had several former officers discussing whether it was clean and critiquing some of the actions.
 

That all goes to the question of fact (what a reasonable LEO would do) and would be decided by a civil jury because reasonable people can disagree in good faith.

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by S2N

[Boiler 48,481]

You need to watch the video it goes into the law and events in quite some detail.

 

There has to be a case before a jury would be involved. Beyond reasonable doubt.

[Crazy Cat 46,046]

My prediction:  The officer is going to file a LOT of civil  lawsuits against a LOT of people for defamation....a LOT of people.  Hillary is one of them.  AOC is one of them.  There are many more.  You would think these people had learned not to be so careless. 

Edited 6 hours ago by Crazy Cat

[Boiler 48,481]

I had not thought of that, I would expect the usual suspects would settle, see the beginning of the video, it depends on the timing of the broadcast but the other angles came out pretty soon. I had seen most of them before I posted here.

 

They are going to want to avoid discovery and super embarrassing.

[S2N 655]

12 minutes ago, Boiler said:

You need to watch the video it goes into the law and events in quite some detail.

 

There has to be a case before a jury would be involved. Beyond reasonable doubt.

It’s not beyond reasonable doubt. That’s not the civil standard for anything, but yes, you have to be able to overcome a summary judgement and Qualified Immunity in order for it to reach a jury. Basically you have to have a triable question of fact. Judge will decide everything on the law and undisputed facts/relevant factual standard for assessing pre-trial motions.

 

The standard I quoted would also be what a judge would be using when doing the analysis.

 

There’s sufficient case law about shooting into fleeing cars it could likely get to a jury, imo, but we’ll see.

 

Theres a lot more to come out and I don’t think this is cut or dry on either side.

Edited 7 hours ago by S2N

[Boiler 48,481]

Generally speaking if you run someone over it is you that has to be concerned about a civil case.

[S2N 655]

5 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Generally speaking if you run someone over it is you that has to be concerned about a civil case.

If you run me over and then I pull out a gun and shoot you because I claim to be afraid you might do it again, I’ve opened myself up to a civil case, because my judgment in those circumstances are open to question as to if a reasonable observer in my circumstances would have had an objective fear of life and continued shooting.
 

Obviously I’m not a cop, but the same idea applies. Civil law tends to have a lot more nuance on the question of culpability than criminal law.

 

Anyway, I’m not going to say more on the question — we’re on the more heat than light point and anyone who wants to come by after can read the volumes I’ve already written

[Boiler 48,481]

Watch the video, a real lawyer discussing these points.

 

Amusingly you are the first to suggest he shot her so she did not do it again? Where did you get that from?

[Crazy Cat 46,046]

11 minutes ago, S2N said:

If you run me over and then I pull out a gun and shoot you because I claim to be afraid you might do it again,

Not the case here by any stretch of imagination........you are moving the goal post.  The driver became a threat and the officer legally took action in self defense as soon as she pressed the gas pedal and moved forward.

Edited 6 hours ago by Crazy Cat

[S2N 655]

2 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Watch the video, a real lawyer discussing these points.

 

Amusingly you are the first to suggest he shot her so she did not do it again? Where did you get that from?

That was my interpretation of when people kept saying you shoot until neutralized (or something similar) for justifying shooting on the side. I didn’t think I was adding anything new. If you prefer, happy to have it framed as 

 

“My judgement as to if I need to keep shooting to neutralize the threat after it has passed me is reasonable.” 
 

To me they’re identical statements, but if they’re not to others, don’t want to fight in semantics.

 

I’ve read a decent amount of legal analysis from real lawyers on the topic. I try to avoid YouTube experts on any topic, since they usually oversimplify complex topics for views.

[Crazy Cat 46,046]

10 minutes ago, S2N said:

That was my interpretation of when people kept saying you shoot until neutralized

The officer fired his shots in the time span of 1 or 2 seconds.  He didn't wait until she was down the street.  Since the first shot went through the front windshield, That is hardly after the fact.  A reasonable person could see the driver as a continued threat for at least 2 seconds. I, as a reasonable person, see no issue with multiple shots being fired in this situation.

Edited 6 hours ago by Crazy Cat

[Dashinka 26,448]

2 hours ago, Boiler said:

 

If anyone is interested in the legal side of things. And a good summary, answers all the questions.

 

I was just thinking of the civil case, I am not familiar with the State law but assuming it is held that it was not intentional her Auto insurance should cover the injuries to the agent and the damage to the vehicle she hit.

 

Could get complicated if it was held to be intentional, my assumption is that the Insurer involved would not want to go there, better to pay up and move on.

He makes a good point about the fact that it was the actions of the driver that put the agent in front of the car.  I saw a few comments about why was the agent in front of the vehicle, seems that he was on the side until she turned into him and started moving forward.  

 

10 hours ago, S2N said:

I don’t see how any of that is relevant to the question of if what he did creates a civil liability for the government. LEOs can make legally incorrect split second decisions that make the government civilly liable even when they’re afraid for their life.

 

It’s virtually certain there’s not going to be any criminal or administrative action taken, so what matters is if there’s enough for it to go to a civil trial.

 

The other question is if it eventually leads to reforms within ICE. The best take I read on it today was in the The Washington Post from a former cop who works at a think tank now:

 

Sometimes these incidents can end up being ‘lawful but awful’ if the legal standard is met but the tactics look avoidable in hindsight

There may be a civil liability issue to the government and those types of things can and do happen all the time.  I also suspect the agent may be able to lodge a civil complaint against the estate and spouse of the driver.  I think the big debate right now, and the impetus for all the caterwauling by the left is about criminal liability.