Well, bitch tried to ram the agents with her SUV. So, she got what she deserved.

Domestic terrorist in MN shot dead after trying to ram ICE agents

The shit is about to hit the fan in Mpls. A shooting war is becoming inevitable. Glad I'm way north of that whole dumpster fire. Timmy and Gwen can be found under their bed in the fetal position when the real shit starts going down.

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:
The shit is about to hit the fan in Mpls.

Nah, I'm not seeing that happening this time.

I wish this didn't happen. I have no issue with how it happened, I just wish it didn't. Stand on the sidewalk and hold a sign. Yell if you must, but please never ever FAFO.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:
The shit is about to hit the fan in Mpls.

Nah, I'm not seeing that happening this time.

I'm going to pray you're correct. my expectation is with the fed's and the state officials holding different positions that ratchets up the chance of conflict.

She's a middle-aged white woman. I expect we'll continue to see the usual protests, but the city won't burn over this. At least that's my thought on the matter. And we have clear video of the incident.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
She's a middle-aged white woman. I expect we'll continue to see the usual protests, but the city won't burn over this. At least that's my thought on the matter. And we have clear video of the incident.

Having seen the video (three angles at this point) to uninformed eyes the video is going to be damning for the officer.

I dunno...

Setting the political aspects aside, you can see in the full video of the shooting that I watched that the officer who fired had placed himself in front of the vehicle by walking out in front of it in the first place (a legal concept known as “officer-created jeopardy” that can be weighed against the officer in the totality of the circumstances), and importantly then appears to have removed himself from the vehicle's path prior to firing the first shot. He did not appear to me to be in imminent danger of serious physical injury or death, since he had the opportunity to move out of the way and had in fact done so, as best I can tell from the videos.

Unless there was another unseen officer to the right/beyond the vehicle that can't be seen in the video who was in danger of being struck by the car, or perhaps if the officer who shot reasonably believed that the officer at the driver's window was being dragged, this shooting likely would not be within policy at my agency (bold emphasis mine):

quote:

Assault by Motor Vehicle: Small arms are not typically an effective tool to quickly disable a motor vehicle. When the ONLY means of an assault on an officer is by motor vehicle, officers:
1. Should not fire upon the vehicle, but most place themselves in the most tactically safe position.
2. Officers shall not knowingly place themselves into the path of a moving vehicle or into the likely path of a moving vehicle that is currently stopped but under the immediate control of the driver.
3. When feasible, officers shall attempt to move out of the path of any moving vehicle to a position of cover.
4. Will not purposely place themselves in the path of fleeing aggressively driven vehicle to justify the use of deadly force.
5. When all other measures have failed, or are not reasonable, officers will direct their fire towards the operator of the vehicle.

I suspect this will go to federal court as a 1983 suit for unreasonable force/seizure, and the officer may or may not prevail at trial, depending on what other evidence is available beyond just the videos I've seen.

I wonder if there is bodycam video from the individual officers involved, or dashcam from the .gov SUV facing the driver. Those could likely provide a more clear view of the distances and angles involved.

There’s another angle where you can see an officer impacted by the vehicle

To quote an X meme I read on this subject , “the dildo of consequence rarely arrives lubed”

quote:

Originally posted by ElKabong:
There’s another angle where you can see an officer impacted by the vehicle

If so, please share.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

She chose very poorly. A moron.

Here is a slow-downed view, it is obvious. FAFO.

https://x.com/CollinRugg/statu...istration-day-353%2F

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by ElKabong:
There’s another angle where you can see an officer impacted by the vehicle

If so, please share.

https://x.com/markvalorian/sta...993442928709763?s=46

Pretty grainy, will be curious to see if any body cam footage gets released

Thank you. That's helpful.

While that video is the least clear of the three I've viewed (due to it being shot from far away and pixelated from digital zoom), it does look from that angle that he appears to likely have been pushed backwards and potentially even spun partly around by the vehicle.

He'll still likely need to clear the "officer-created jeopardy" hurdle, but this angle does help make it more of a righteous shoot as he was in imminent danger of being struck by the car, and seems to have in fact been struck.

This angle shows the Officer being hit by the suspect's vehicle. Also, this had officer exited a vehicle that was on the right side of the suspect's car, when it was stopped, and the woman was ordered out of the car. His location/proximity was NOT due to him purposely placing himself in the path of a fleeing/moving vehicle.



https://x.com/nicksortor/status/2008973759097733306

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:...

Not arguing, but asking.

I see the officer standing forward of the SUV on the passenger side and her wheels were turned to the left before she started backing up, then she started backing up and began straightening the wheels and that is when the officer started moving to the driver's side still in front of the vehichle, then she put it in drive and started driving forward as she turned the wheels to the right.

SO, for the officers POV and as it unfolded, with the "time it takes for eyes seeing, brain cyphering, decision making and action taken", he may well have been committed to the action, even though analysis give the appearance that he "should not have taken a shot".

I am very big on the understanding of the luxury of having several videos, images, and information that a person in them moment does not have.

He did not place himself (as far as I can see with what is available) in jeopardy in the beginning of the video, as I believe he was in front and to the passenger side at the onset.

A "top down" view to know exactly where he was standing, as well as his POV at that point and moving forward would be a tremendous help in understanding.


Does any of that make a difference to the "protocols" you posted? (which I agree are prudent)

The driver may have been trans, it's being reported to me.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
I see the officer standing forward of the SUV on the passenger side and her wheels were turned to the left before she started backing up, then she started backing up and began straightening the wheels and that is when the officer started moving to the driver's side still in front of the vehichle, then she put it in drive and started driving forward as she turned the wheels to the right.

SO, for the officers POV and as it unfolded, with the "time it takes for eyes seeing, brain cyphering, decision making and action taken", he may well have been committed to the action, even though analysis give the appearance that he "should not have taken a shot".

I am very big on the understanding of the luxury of having several videos, images, and information that a person in them moment does not have.

He did not place himself (as far as I can see with what is available) in jeopardy in the beginning of the video, as I believe he was in front and to the passenger side at the onset.

A "top down" view to know exactly where he was standing, as well as his POV at that point and moving forward would be a tremendous help in understanding.


Does any of that make a difference to the "protocols" you posted? (which I agree are prudent)

Yes, OODA loop time is definitely a factor in these types of cases. The human body doesn't act/react instantaneously, and especially changing track mid-action is even slower. That's something that his defense team will probably hammer on, especially when it comes to his final (third?) shot as the car was passing him.


The officer-created jeopardy issue (and the example policy violation) stems from him walking from behind the vehicle, along the passenger side, and then potentially choosing to stand in front of it.

For example, this video at CNN starts ~15 seconds prior to the shooting.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/07...g-minneapolis-digvid

The officer who shot is seen in the first few seconds walking behind the Honda SUV along with someone in a flannel shirt and white cap. He then (off camera) walks alongside the passenger side of the vehicle, and then at ~12 seconds reappears and is seen standing in front of the vehicle, as he begins to move over to the driver's side front corner. He then fires at ~15 seconds.

Now, the vehicle does adjust its angle as it backs up. So it would be helpful to know if the officer was originally totally clear off to the side of the vehicle on the passenger side, and it was solely the driver's actions that placed him in the path of the vehicle. That would eliminate any OCJ.

But from my viewings of the video, it looks to me from that footage that he was standing in front of the vehicle on the passenger side of the SUV's path, and the SUV reversing then places him still in front of the vehicle on the driver's side of the path.

Not that it matters much but I think this may be an out of state car. The rear plate does not look like a Minnesota plate and there is no front plate at all which is required in Minnesota.