1 edit
@Mott-The-Hoople saidI responded to that post; you left out the part of the law that defined "deadly force".
I provided mn law on this …why do you keep lying about it?
It requires a "substantial risk of death or great physical harm" before it can be used.
That didn't exist here.
@no1marauder saidI didnt leave anything out,,,you have to try to make it appear I did so you donthave to admit you are wrong
I responded to that post; you left out the part of the law that defined "deadly force".
It requires a "substantial risk of death or great physical harm" before it can be used.
That didn't exist here.
The moment the driver accelerated when the officer was in front of the vehicle warranted deadly force..the officer could have continued firing at the vehicle until it was brought under control if need be,,,fleeing does not stop the officers lawful need to stop the assailant.
That is the law in MN...you can quit lying about it.
The post that was quoted here has been removedDo you sleep easy knowing the hell that Trump has to clean up left behind by Biden. Did Trump do better with Madero and Iran than Biden did with Afghanistan?
You don’t want to argue with average jJoe about such as that. Oh, did I mention the 20 million illegal aliens that Trump is having to kick out of this country. Oh you don’t like that ? Then will you tell us what would you do with all of these illegal aliens. Should Biden be put in jail for what he did opening our Southern border violating his oath of office???
Let’s discuss!!!
@Mott-The-Hoople saidYou left out the whole first subdivision which defined deadly force.
I didnt leave anything out,,,you have to try to make it appear I did so you donthave to admit you are wrong
The moment the driver accelerated when the officer was in front of the vehicle warranted deadly force..the officer could have continued firing at the vehicle until it was brought under control if need be,,,fleeing does not stop the officers lawful need to stop the assailant.
That is the law in MN...you can quit lying about it.
You're full of crap; deadly force can't be used by law enforcement in Minnesota unless there is a substantial risk of death or grave physical harm. That didn't exist here and you know it, so you keep lying about the law. Pathetic.
2 edits
@Mott-The-Hoople saidActually you not only left out the whole first subdivision, but used a section that is no longer in effect. It says right on top: "This is an historical version of this statute chapter. Also view the most recent published version."
I didnt leave anything out,,,you have to try to make it appear I did so you donthave to admit you are wrong
The moment the driver accelerated when the officer was in front of the vehicle warranted deadly force..the officer could have continued firing at the vehicle until it was brought under control if need be,,,fleeing does not stop the officers lawful need to stop the assailant.
That is the law in MN...you can quit lying about it.
Now let's go to the "most recent published version":
"609.066 AUTHORIZED USE OF DEADLY FORCE BY PEACE OFFICERS.
Subdivision 1.Deadly force defined. For the purposes of this section, "deadly force" means force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which the actor should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing, death or great bodily harm. The intentional discharge of a firearm, other than a firearm loaded with less lethal munitions and used by a peace officer within the scope of official duties, in the direction of another person, or at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be, constitutes deadly force. "Less lethal munitions" means projectiles which are designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person. "Peace officer" has the meaning given in section 626.84, subdivision 1.
Subd. 1a.Legislative intent. The legislature hereby finds and declares the following:
(1) that the authority to use deadly force, conferred on peace officers by this section, is a critical responsibility that shall be exercised judiciously and with respect for human rights and dignity and for the sanctity of every human life. The legislature further finds and declares that every person has a right to be free from excessive use of force by officers acting under color of law;
(2) as set forth below, it is the intent of the legislature that peace officers use deadly force only when necessary in defense of human life or to prevent great bodily harm. In determining whether deadly force is necessary, officers shall evaluate each situation in light of the particular circumstances of each case;
(3) that the decision by a peace officer to use deadly force shall be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation, based on the totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the officer at the time, rather than with the benefit of hindsight, and that the totality of the circumstances shall account for occasions when officers may be forced to make quick judgments about using deadly force; and
(4) that peace officers should exercise special care when interacting with individuals with known physical, mental health, developmental, or intellectual disabilities as an individual's disability may affect the individual's ability to understand or comply with commands from peace officers.
Subd. 2.Use of deadly force. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06 or 609.065, the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that such force is necessary:
(1) to protect the peace officer or another from death or great bodily harm, provided that the threat:
(i) can be articulated with specificity;
(ii) is reasonably likely to occur absent action by the law enforcement officer; and
(iii) must be addressed through the use of deadly force without unreasonable delay; or
(2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony and the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm to another person under the threat criteria in clause (1), items (i) to (iii), unless immediately apprehended.
(b) A peace officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger the person poses to self if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that the person does not pose a threat of death or great bodily harm to the peace officer or to another under the threat criteria in paragraph (a), clause (1), items (i) to (iii).
Subd. 3.No defense. This section and sections 609.06, 609.065 and 629.33 may not be used as a defense in a civil action brought by an innocent third party."
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.066https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.066hasis supplied)
None of the criteria given in subdivision 2 was met here; Ross was never threatened with "death or great bodily harm" by a slow moving vehicle turning away from him.
I don't like to use personal anecdotes in Debates, but I was actually struck by a car going about 10-12 MPH (far more speed than Good's car when it supposedly touched Ross). It knocked me over, left a bruise up almost my entire right leg and I was limping for weeks. Ross was walking normally right after the shooting, showing no ill effects.
@AverageJoe1 saidYou are not worth talking to any more, a Trump propagandist and sociopath. Take your BULLCRAP elsewhere.
Do you sleep easy knowing the hell that Trump has to clean up left behind by Biden. Did Trump do better with Madero and Iran than Biden did with Afghanistan?
You don’t want to argue with average jJoe about such as that. Oh, did I mention the 20 million illegal aliens that Trump is having to kick out of this country. Oh you don’t like that ? Then will you tell us what ...[text shortened]... il for what he did opening our Southern border violating his oath of office???
Let’s discuss!!!
@no1marauder saidAllow me to fast forward…
Actually you not only left out the whole first subdivision, but used a section that is no longer in effect. It says right on top: "This is an historical version of this statute chapter. Also view the most recent published version."
Now let's go to the "most recent published version":
"609.066 AUTHORIZED USE OF DEADLY FORCE BY PEACE OFFICERS.
Subdivision 1.Deadly fo ...[text shortened]... I was limping for weeks. Ross was walking normally right after the shooting, showing no ill effects.
You will be proven wrong, the officer will not be charged…you will scream the courts got it wrong
Just like all the times before🤡
@sonhouse saidAre 20M illegal alien invaders bullcrap? And why do you mention Trump, for god sake. BIDEN is the one who brought them in here.
You are not worth talking to any more, a Trump propagandist and sociopath. Take your BULLCRAP elsewhere.
A yes or no on this one. You are out greatest debater, what do you think?
@Mott-The-Hoople saidYou dare argue with a Bot?
Allow me to fast forward…
You will be proven wrong, the officer will not be charged…you will scream the courts got it wrong
Just like all the times before🤡
@Mott-The-Hoople saidIf Hillary got off, then everyone ever shall all get off. For anything.
Allow me to fast forward…
You will be proven wrong, the officer will not be charged…you will scream the courts got it wrong
Just like all the times before🤡
All or none. I predict it will be none.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidLike Derek Chauvin?
Allow me to fast forward…
You will be proven wrong, the officer will not be charged…you will scream the courts got it wrong
Just like all the times before🤡