Daunte Wright shooting Brooklyn MN

[fixer]

Insufficient justification for a lethal response in the moment.

Was there a cop standing in front of the vehicle in imminent danger of loss of life or grave bodily harm?

Can you articulate what the subject would have done with the vehicle once free of the officers? What threat he would have constituted to the public as a result of escape?

Was there imminent danger of loss of life or grave bodily harm at the very moment the trigger was pulled?
(In your scenario, not in the real event, we already know it was unintended by the officer.)

Front no. rear? highly likely.

given that the arrest stems from a serious warrant, there wasn't a reason to not think the guy could have used the car against the officers or have it turn into a melee like this:

https://kstp.com/news/video-shows-hu...-stop/6076628/

which for officer safety is not reasonable.

as for public, guy easily can be suspected of being armed and dangerous.

the guy needed to be stopped right then, and right there. If he survives to fulfill the warrant ok. that situation totally depended on his actions alone.

[blues]

Much as I have little use for miscreants, I think you'd have found yourself in dire straits...either departmentally or judicially if you acted as you propose.

Do you for a second believe that the 2nd degree manslaughter charge (or higher) wouldn't have been brought against the officer had she simply drawn her weapon and fired using your justifications above?

(Assuming no option for taser, ASP, sap, pepper spray or other less than lethal device or tactic.)

You're certainly entitled to your opinion...but I'm afraid it wouldn't keep you from losing your job or being sued and / or charged.

[fixer]

Much as I have little use for miscreants, I think you'd have found yourself in dire straits...either departmentally or judicially if you acted as you propose.

Do you for a second believe that the 2nd degree manslaughter charge (or higher) wouldn't have been brought against the officer had she simply drawn her weapon and fired using your justifications above?

(Assuming no option for taser, ASP, sap, pepper spray or other less than lethal device or tactic.)

You're certainly entitled to your opinion...but I'm afraid it wouldn't keep you from losing your job or being sued and / or charged.

I appreciate you entertaining my thought experiment. sincerely.

In today's world, and quadrupl-y so for Minnesota, charges on police officers are highly politically driven decisions. Yeah I think charges would have been likely.

[blues]

I appreciate you entertaining my thought experiment. sincerely.

In today's world, and quadrupl-y so for Minnesota, charges on police officers are highly politically driven decisions. Yeah I think charges would have been likely.

My pleasure, @fixer. I've always seen you as one of the good guys around here...we just have a divergent view of the current reality and the ability to justify a decision to use lethal force...not necessarily our personal feelings about offenders and predators.

[RevolverRob]

You need hands to do police work.

If you have hands (and by extension elbows, knees, and feet), you're never out of less lethal options.

I do not want to downplay the importance of field training for officers. But if, in lieu, of say a few day shifts, trainees took ECQC, Immediate Action Jiu Jitsu, and VCAST, maybe things like this would be less likely to happen. Can't say for sure.

But I'd be willing to use my tax dollars to fund a whole department getting trained in high level tactics for the type of close work they do. I'd be willing to bet that the budget would balance with far fewer settlement payouts.

[HCM]

I have a new perspective on this situation.

yes the officer made a mistake in mixing up taser vs pistol. Does this reflect on the officer as well as the department? Yes sure.

Lets think about it another way...

Who cares if this mistake was made?

Stay with me...

There was no guarantee that this officer or this dept was going to have tasers and (assuming) a policy on using less lethal as a first course of action. No guarantee at all.

In another jurisdiction, locality, etc...this shoot would have likely happened anyway.

Given the totality of this including the warrant and the situation unfolding, I don't think a pistol and shooting was the wrong choice.

Put another way, and intentional shoot would likely have been justified under the same scenario.

If you want a new perspective forget trying to justify deadly force on theoretical contructs.

Rather take a look at relative culpability. How much responsibility does Wright bear for both what happened to him because he chose to unlawfully resist arrest and flee ?

Given it’s likely he knew he had warrants does that increase his culpability?

Relative culpability is the core of the U.S. Supreme Court case Harris v Scott.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/05-1631

In determining a seizure’s reasonableness, the Court balances the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests allegedly justifying the intrusion. United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696. In weighing the high likelihood of serious injury or death to respondent that Scott’s actions posed against the actual and imminent threat that respondent posed to the lives of others, the Court takes account of the number of lives at risk and the relative culpability of the parties involved. Respondent intentionally placed himself and the public in danger by unlawfully engaging in reckless, high-speed flight; those who might have been harmed had Scott not forced respondent off the road were entirely innocent. The Court concludes that it was reasonable for Scott to take the action he did. It rejects respondent’s argument that safety could have been assured if the police simply ceased their pursuit. The Court rules that a police officer’s attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death

[fixer]

@ HCM

Thanks! Learning occurred.

[HCM]

You need hands to do police work.

If you have hands (and by extension elbows, knees, and feet), you're never out of less lethal options.

True, but if you "do this for a living" responding with equal, rather than greater force is a losing proposition, especially if things like LVNR are off the table. Plus those involve getting close and officer always bring at least one gun to every fight.

I do not want to downplay the importance of field training for officers. But if, in lieu, of say a few day shifts, trainees took ECQC, Immediate Action Jiu Jitsu, and VCAST, maybe things like this would be less likely to happen. Can't say for sure.

A lot of more switched on depts do that training.... in the academy. Old school depts also did boxing or some form of full contact exercises. The problem is sustainment training. If you had ECQC then a couple hours refresher once a year their after how much are you retaining 10, 15, 20 years later ?

But I'd be willing to use my tax dollars to fund a whole department getting trained in high level tactics for the type of close work they do. I'd be willing to bet that the budget would balance with far fewer settlement payouts.

[Wyoming Shooter]

I've watched bits and pieces of this trial. The defense strategy seems to be that although former officer Potter mistook her Glock for her Taser, her use of deadly force was appropriate to stop her cover officer from being dragged away by the suspect's vehicle. It will be interesting to see how that resonates with the jury. My guess is that former officer Potter will present very sympathetically. This case is certainly not a slam dunk for the prosecution.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

My opinion is worth what you paid for it. I don't see the defense trying to justify deadly force. I think their focus is a terrible accident due to contributing psychological factors.

If she argued that deadly force was needed, you wouldn't have Miller's testimony and you have her saying: Taser, Taser, Taser - and then being horrified about shooting him and what would happen to her.

Miller is well known pro-police psychologist using two things: action errors and slip and capture. Again this is my BS, given the risk of action errors and the discussion sort of mistake of that in training, might you expect a person to be super careful about deployment or have a training standard of conscious or even unconscious competence. Thus the introduction of the error is a double edged sword IMHO. The idea of slip-capture is a creation of Dr. Lewinski and not a standard term, at least as I read from other professionals and some think it is made up junk. However, the medical error literature discusses slip errors - so is this a big defense weakness. Probably not.

I think (worth nothing) that the common knowledge of such errors works against her. Yes, the stress might have contributed to her error but should an experienced officer be past that? The 'experts' are making this point.

Her testimony probably has more of a sympathy aspect. She certainly is contrite and shattered by what she said (for Wright and herself, of course - which is more potent to the jury?).

As a minor factor, she dresses as a sympathetic middle aged or older female. I'm sure the outfit was thought out. Would you punish n prison that person. Is is playing gender stereotypes as a mom, spouse and does the crying help? Not remembering her actions - not that useful.

Again, what do I know in this. The jury will decide.