Minneapolis Shooting [spelling in title corrected]

[Boiler 48,481]

The officer who was shot I think had gone around the other side, his colleague was going for the drivers door. Seemed he was filing, mind you most people seemed to have their phones out. The wife was busy filing as well. Would be interesting to see that.

 

I have not timed it but the whole event from her backing up to driving off and being shot took 7 seconds.

[Dashinka 26,448]

15 minutes ago, S2N said:

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.

Except the first shot did not occur until after the agent was struck.  Considering the split second decision that had to be made about the uncontrollable nature of the situation, it seems a reasonable action by the agent (he did not know how bad he was hit, where he would end up if knocked down or what direction change of the vehicle might occur, etc.).  The problem with all the analysis (YouTube or in print) is it is all discussing things after the event with the help of slow motion video, multiple angles, etc. and the law requires the judgement to be made without that.

 

Again, we shall see how the criminal issues proceed with the investigation, and who knows how political bias will play into that process (hopefully not a lot).  As to the civil case(s), just keep in mind the agent has civil avenues as well.

[S2N 655]

1 minute ago, Dashinka said:

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.

It’d be next to impossible for there to be a criminal case even ignoring the current administration. That standard is incredibly high and very hard to prove. Civil is almost always the only thing that matters in these cases (and also the only thing that really ever changes government policy; since criminal cases are usually only brought when the LEO is acting outside of policy, but civil can be brought for in-policy shootings by arguing it’s unconstitutional.)

 

We’ll see how it shakes out.

 

11 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

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.

My last comment on this theme: I posted a few links to court cases around this: the 9th circuit held that three plus volleys over 6 seconds were three uses of force that needed to be analyzed separately and SCOTUS very recently overruled the 5th circuit standard that only required an analysis in the moment of force/threat (which had been defined as 2 seconds), and required a totality of the facts review. The fact that this was all within two seconds doesn’t necessarily make it one use of force or reasonable (nor does the fact it was on the side make it unreasonable.)

 

My entire point over the last few days is we don’t have enough of the facts to determine what the result here will be.  Most of the people here have been on the ICE side, so I’ve been arguing caution on that, but I’d equally argue we don’t have enough facts to make it clear he acted incorrectly or there was a clear case of anything. Based on what we do know, I see the potential for a civil case, but we’re far from having all the facts and anything anyone says (including me) is pure speculation on either side.

 

Anyway — more heat than light at this point and like and appreciate all of you guys, so disengaging. Anyone who is curious as to my thoughts can read all I’ve already posted. Thanks as always to everyone here for the engaging discussion

[Crazy Cat 46,046]

9 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

The problem with all the analysis (YouTube or in print) is it is all discussing things after the event with the help of slow motion video, multiple angles, etc. and the law requires the judgement to be made without that.

Exactly.....Life doesn't happen in still frames or slow motion....and any 20/20 analysis using either should be invalid in a court of law....or anywhere else.  Amazing that none of the leftists in main stream media will admit that.

[TBoneTX 48,915]

4 hours ago, S2N said:

Thanks as always to everyone here for the engaging discussion

Same here, to everyone, for keeping posts on a high plane despite the controversy of the issue.