They were all moving away from his vehicle-he drove back towards them. There were 3-4 seconds between the first and last shots.
The officers were in danger though. They easily could have been hit with friendly fire. Watching how they were spread out, and the direction they were shooting, they were lucky none of them got shot.
Agree here. They actually caused significant danger to the community with how many rounds they fired off.
Iâll say that I donât think these guys are fit to be officers based on how they handled this. This is what I would expect from gang activity.
Doing a comparison here, but IMO, the Kim Potter case (who is charged) is more defendable than this (and this isnât getting a charge).
1 Like
100 charges on rap sheet, going back 30 years to his teens, and 6 resisting arrests.
1 Like
He was literally driving away from that life at the moment his life was snuffed out by racism.
She shot someone for resisting.
These guys (reasonably, considering he drove towards them even after they had moved) believed someone was using his vehicle as a weapon against them.
1 Like
I think it is plausible that it was an accident. In MN, 2nd degree manslaughter requires recklessness and negligence. IIRC, we did go over this? IMO, this is really tough here. If you prove it wasnât an accident, then it is murder, but if you canât prove it, it isnât manslaughter or murder.
Reasonably by law? Perhaps. I personally donât feel it was reasonable. It looks like he veers off to one side to drive between two officers. It looked like an escape attempt to me, not an attempted homicide of an officer.
I feel that one has to be very generous to the officers here to believe they felt endangered. It may be plausible, which is probably enough. IMO, I think it should go to a special prosecutor to evaluate. The state seems very hesitant to do that, but I think they should.
Isnât part of their job getting in harmâs way so the rest of us donât have to?
Surrendering to the cops is another.
His existence was a danger to the public, for years.
3 Likes
I definitely think it was an accident. She still shot someone for resisting.
He drove directly towards an officer.
1 Like
Under the correct circumstances, one can shot someone in MN and have it not be a crime. So for example, if you are in the suburbs, and you are firing your gun in the back yard, and a stray bullet hits someone that meets the 2nd degree standard in MN (it is negligent and reckless). If you accidently discharged your weapon (while not doing something reckless), and killed someone that would not be 2nd degree in MN.
To me if she thought it was a taser (which I believe), then she didnât have an aspect of recklessness (we have deemed it is acceptable for police to taser someone in that situation).
This might be the shitty cameras, but I am not seeing this? Was he moving forward or backwards at the time?
I did see as he was turning that he may have clipped an officers hip or arm with the fender of his car.
I heard the first shot right at the time the car was potentially going to hit one officer and it definitely wasnât fired by him.
2 Likes
The article also says the family(or their legal representative) previously claimed the first shot fired was when the dead guy was âbacking upâ. It was a blatant lie, wasnât it?
2 Likes
So the cops shouldnât have shot, and instead HOPED that the other cops could manage to get out of the way of the car he was driving at them? That makes no sense at all.
I would hope so.
Is that a legal determination? I mean, has there been a ruling that says that?
- No such thing as an âaccidental discharge,â only negligent.
Thatâll be for the court to decide, I guess. I donât agree with the charge, but she definitely shot someone for resisting.
1:25ish
Forward
Whether he did or didnât actually make contact with someone likely has little to do with it.
It was. I watched the video multiple times trying to find that. All I could find is the loud noise on one officerâs camera as the guy is first backing up.
1 Like
I also donât like the way the article describes the bringing up of narcotics in the dead guyâs possession. That may be excluded from evidence IN COURT. This is not a fucking court. Are they taking this âtrial by mediaâ shit literally?
1 Like
I see the car trying to drive between the cops to get away. I do not see it being floored recklessly without regard for human life, or driven maliciously. To me it appears pretty obvious that the driver is trying to drive between and miss the officers in his attempt to flee.
I also do not think that firing on the driver in that or similar situations reduces, mitigates, or eliminates the threat as the drivers reaction is always to duck and floor it. this increases the danger to people in the vicinity. not to mention that if he is hit you now have a driver speeding away for his life who is bleeding out and will pass out and crash into who-knows-what shortly after.
And then finally, how many shots were fired at the vehicle after the point no cops were in danger? Easily double digits. To me, this looks like the cops were firing on the driver to stop him from fleeing.
1 Like
In their defense, they are TMZ, the premier authority on legal matters.
1 Like
FWIW, the website i linked is TMZ which is about as trashy and far from ânewsâ as it gets. They mostly focus on celeb gossip and hounding celebs into freakouts which they then publicize. They are the worst of the papparazi. Its just the only website i could find in 2 mins of googling that had an easy link to the video.
1 Like
Yeah, I get it. I was just commenting on the writing, nothing to do with the fact that you posted the link since I think you just wanted us to see the whole video.
2 Likes
Iâm shocked these things happen. I thought every black kid is given âthe talk.â It just doesnât add up.
2 Likes