Minneapolis Shooting [spelling in title corrected]

[Crazy Cat 46,034]

4 minutes ago, S2N said:

Still would leave question of the other two shots

Irrelevant, imo.  The officer can fire multiple times  to ensure a threat has been neutralized. 

Edited 12 hours ago by Crazy Cat

[S2N 652]

10 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

Irrelevant, imo.  The officer can fire multiple times  to ensure a threat has been neutralized. 

If it goes to civil court, they would likely be analyzed as two separate instances. If the videos correct, they’d need to justify the second round of shots either as reasonable or “unreasonable but no court has ever ruled that an immigration officer who has already jumped out of the way of a car can’t shoot twice more so even while he has civil immunity, future immigration officers who jump out of the way of cars and keep firing won’t.” [which is what qualified immunity more or less does]

 

I think a civil court would likely go for the second option.

 

On denying the doctor access point, there’s likely some Duty of Care precedent they can cite to get it to a jury. DHS would likely settle on behalf of all of them before it gets to that point to avoid a clear precedent, though.

Edited 11 hours ago by S2N

[speedster 60]

1 hour 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 are "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.

I mean when you drive you press the gas pedal, its the only way you moved forward. As far as position of the ice officer I've posted a still of where he was when the first shot was fired, both feet firmly planted at the SIDE of the car. While the cars wheels was turned AWAY. The new video that came out prove it even more so with her steering well before in advance, violating protocol and their own rules on approaching a car, and it doesn't help the officer saying the words "f***ing b**ch" right after the shooting. Also holding his phone in one hand and shooting with the other is not gonna go well with any court, its very careless.

Case law proves many many times again, as I have said again...position of his body matters. You cannot use deadly force to prevent a car getting away. Barnes v. Felix as well, the excessive use of force but be analyzed using the totality of circumstances, and NOT "the moment of threat". Cordova v. Aragon, Orn v. City of Tacoma are more case laws
Villanueva v Cleveland where Police officers were not entitled to qualified immunity after fatally shooting victim because officers could have simply moved away from slowly moving vehicle. This case was also "Villanueva performed the three-point turn in a controlled manner, and when the Officers opened fire" - Hmm Ms. Good performed a controlled turn away from officers, clearly showed from videos.

But sure lets ignore case law everyone. There's like more of these cases as well

[speedster 60]

13 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

Irrelevant, imo.  The officer can fire multiple times  to ensure a threat has been neutralized. 

 
In charges every shot is a verdict, you can be not guilty on shot 1 but guilty on shot 2-4

[S2N 652]

2 minutes ago, speedster said:

I mean when you drive you press the gas pedal, its the only way you moved forward. As far as position of the ice officer I've posted a still of where he was when the first shot was fired, both feet firmly planted at the SIDE of the car. While the cars wheels was turned AWAY. The new video that came out prove it even more so with her steering well before in advance, violating protocol and their own rules on approaching a car, and it doesn't help the officer saying the words "f***ing b**ch" right after the shooting. Also holding his phone in one hand and shooting with the other is not gonna go well with any court, its very careless.

Case law proves many many times again, as I have said again...position of his body matters. You cannot use deadly force to prevent a car getting away. Barnes v. Felix as well, the excessive use of force but be analyzed using the totality of circumstances, and NOT "the moment of threat". Cordova v. Aragon, Orn v. City of Tacoma are more case laws
Villanueva v Cleveland where Police officers were not entitled to qualified immunity after fatally shooting victim because officers could have simply moved away from slowly moving vehicle. This case was also "Villanueva performed the three-point turn in a controlled manner, and when the Officers opened fire" - Hmm Ms. Good performed a controlled turn away from officers, clearly showed from videos.

But sure lets ignore case law everyone. There's like more of these cases as well

I agree that this isn’t a clear cut clean shot and that all of the videos taken together really don’t paint a clear picture. Under this DOJ you’re unlikely to get an investigation that’s not full of talking points though or any administrative action, and virtually no shot of charges.

 

The question is how it would play out in civil court more than anything and qualified immunity is very strong. The surviving wife has a shot on the medical care point, though. Pretty sure qualified immunity wouldn’t cover that, and there’s legions of cases involving prisons and cops with dying people and not providing sufficient care.
 

I don’t see how telling a doctor with a medical kit “you can’t approach the dying lady” plays well with any jury, even if there’s some internal ICE or DOJ policy on it.

[Ban Hammer 14,870]

12 minutes ago, speedster said:

 
In charges every shot is a verdict, you can be not guilty on shot 1 but guilty on shot 2-4

that's nonsense.

[S2N 652]

9 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

that's nonsense.

Federal courts have analyzed per round of shots fired in civil cases of police conduct in the past. It wouldn’t be guilty or not guilty in a criminal sense, but a court could (and probably would given the facts of this case) analyze whether the shot in front of the car was justified, and then analyze whether the shots on the side were.

 

A criminal court more than anything it depends on how the judge instructs the jury and what they’re tasked with finding.  A court could instruct the jury to follow the same analysis mentioned above. It’d still be one count, but they could have separate questions to answer before finding a verdict. It could also be instructed to conclude as a whole. But there’s also no way this ever goes criminal no matter what the facts are given the current climate.

Edited 11 hours ago by S2N

[Ban Hammer 14,870]

1 minute ago, S2N said:

Federal courts have analyzed per round of shots fired in civil cases of police conduct in the past. It wouldn’t be guilty or not guilty in a criminal sense, but a court could (and probably would given the facts of this case) analyze whether the shot in front of the car was justified, and then analyze whether the shots on the side were.

 

A criminal court more than anything it depends on how the judge instructs the jury and what they’re tasked with finding.  A court could instruct the jury to follow the same analysis mentioned above. It’d still be one count, but they could have separate questions to answer before finding a verdict.

i'll consider that when i see a link to such.
the rule of thumb is to shoot until the threat is neutralized.  this was 3 shots (not 5 as earlier stated) in rapid succession.  i wouldn't suggest betting the farm on 
that claim you made.

[S2N 652]

18 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

i'll consider that when i see a link to such.
the rule of thumb is to shoot until the threat is neutralized.  this was 3 shots (not 5 as earlier stated) in rapid succession.  i wouldn't suggest betting the farm on 
that claim you made.

Estate of Hernandez v. City of Los Angeles

 

Analyzed three different uses of force on the same suspect. Held that the first two were justified but whether or not the third was justified was a matter of fact for a jury to decide because it was a matter of established law that continuing to shoot an incapacitated suspect violates the Fourth Amendment.

 

9th circuit, so not applicable to Minnesota, but courts can and do analyze shots as distinct instances (in the case the court analyzed per “volley” of shots)

 

Edit to add: for context, the shooting took place over six seconds (per the PDF opinion) and the Court of Appeals analyzed each volley of the six second encounter.

Edited 11 hours ago by S2N

[Ban Hammer 14,870]

5 minutes ago, S2N said:

Estate of Hernandez v. City of Los Angeles

 

Analyzed three different uses of force on the same suspect. Held that the first two were justified but whether or not the third was justified was a matter of fact for a jury to decide because it was a matter of established law that continuing to shoot an incapacitated suspect violates the Fourth Amendment.

 

9th circuit, so not applicable to Minnesota, but courts can and do analyze shots as distinct instances (in the case the court analyzed per “volley” of shots)

Quote

Although the entire shooting occurred over just six seconds, McBride fired three distinct volleys of two shots, pausing after each.

the above is from your link.  it's not even in the same ball park.  still don't bet the farm on it.

[Boiler 48,464]

CNN have now shown the footsge

 

Difficult to spin

[Crazy Cat 46,034]

8 minutes ago, S2N said:

Estate of Hernandez v. City of Los Angeles

 

Analyzed three different uses of force on the same suspect. Held that the first two were justified but whether or not the third was justified was a matter of fact for a jury to decide because it was a matter of established law that continuing to shoot an incapacitated suspect violates the Fourth Amendment.

 

9th circuit, so not applicable to Minnesota, but courts can and do analyze shots as distinct instances (in the case the court analyzed per “volley” of shots)

Not even to to the same situation

"The officer fired the final volley—shots five and six—after Hernandez had collapsed on the ground. He was on his back with his knees curled up to his chest, rolling away from the officer."

Edited 11 hours ago by Crazy Cat

[Ban Hammer 14,870]

3 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

Not even to to the same situation

"The officer fired the final volley—shots five and six—after Hernandez had collapsed on the ground. He was on his back with his knees curled up to his chest, rolling away from the officer."

apparently there is an issue understanding "the threat is neutralized"

[S2N 652]

2 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

the above is from your link.  it's not even in the same ball park.  still don't bet the farm on it.

 

2 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

Not even to to the same situation

"The officer fired the final volley—shots five and six—after Hernandez had collapsed on the ground. He was on his back with his knees curled up to his chest, rolling away from the officer."

Sure; I never claimed otherwise. The point of that ruling (in the 9th Circuit) was when there’s a question of fact as to if continued shooting was justified, it’s for a jury to analyze.

 

The question of fact here would be whether or not when the officer was on the side of the car, the suspect was incapacitated. A reasonable observer is going to see two “volleys” in this case. The first shot and the second round. The Estate could argue that to a judge.

[Ban Hammer 14,870]

1 minute ago, S2N said:

 

Sure; I never claimed otherwise. The point of that ruling (in the 9th Circuit) was when there’s a question of fact as to if continued shooting was justified, it’s for a jury to analyze.

 

The question of fact here would be whether or not when the officer was on the side of the car, the suspect was incapacitated. A reasonable observer is going to see two “volleys” in this case. The first shot and the second round. The Estate could argue that to a judge.

no, i'm sure the entire case hinged on the part about shooting continuing after the suspect was down.
not only not in the same ball park, not even the same game.