Today's Protest - Photos

ZMAN : I got caught up with the tree trimming down the way. Teens and people in the community were helping with the cleanup. I felt the same way leaving Kingwood today.

500 credits sent!
UHTrey tipped Spork 500 credits for a post in this forum discussion.

Sophos2 : what time do elementary schools start? A quick Google search says 7:30 for public schools in Minneapolis. The event happened 2 hours after.

Spork :
Response part2
From a prosecution's perspective, this incident is not about cinematic hypotheticals or abstract training doctrine; it is about what a reasonable officer, bound by policy and constitutional limits, did in a measurable span of real time. The video shows a momentary loss of traction followed by vehicle movement, but it also shows a sequence that unfolded over fractions of a second in which the officer made not one, but multiple discrete decisions to fire. The law does not evaluate force in hindsight, but it does require that each use of force be justified at the moment it is applied. The prosecution's case centers on whether that justification persisted through all shots fired. It is undisputed that a vehicle can constitute a deadly weapon and that officers are trained to use lethal force when they reasonably believe they face an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. However, the same policies are equally clear that officers are not trained to shoot vehicles, are not trained to disable vehicles with firearms, and are instructed that bullets are unlikely to stop a moving car. That policy exists precisely to narrow the circumstances in which deadly force against a driver is lawful: only when the driver's actions pose an immediate and ongoing lethal threat to officers or others. A case turns on whether that threshold was met for every shot fired. The initial shot, viewed in isolation, may be argued as a reaction to sudden acceleration. The front tire slip and the backward rock of a vehicle can reasonably be perceived as the beginning of a potentially lethal movement. No need to deny that this moment was tense or that reaction time was limited. But constitutional force analysis does not end with the first trigger pull. The officer then fired additional rounds in rapid succession that "double tap" constitutes a separate use of deadly force that must be independently justified. Critically, the video evidence shows that between the first and subsequent shots, circumstances materially changed. A fellow officer who had been in jeopardy became disengaged from the vehicle. That disengagement is not speculative; it is visible and contemporaneous with the later shots. Once the other officer was no longer being dragged or directly endangered by the vehicle, the immediate threat to life had diminished. At that moment, the legal justification for continued lethal force is no longer presumed; it must be affirmatively established. The prosecution would argue that it cannot be. The officer's training is central here, but not in the way the you suggest. Officers are trained that firearms are tools to stop people, not machines-but only when lethal force is justified. Training does not authorize firing reflexively until a magazine is empty; it requires continuous threat assessment. The law expects officers, even under stress, to reassess when new information becomes apparent. The detachment of the fellow officer was precisely the kind of new information that should have triggered that reassessment. Moreover, the fact that only a single round struck the vehicle (through the windshield toward the driver) undermines any claim that the later shots were necessary to stop an ongoing lethal threat. Those subsequent rounds did not correspond with a new acceleration, a renewed attempt to strike an officer, or a fresh act that increased danger. Instead, they followed the same initial movement, after the most acute risk had already abated. From a prosecutorial standpoint, that timing matters. This is not about accusing the officer of trying to disable a vehicle or prevent flight; no credible evidence supports that theory, and there isn't need not advance it. The issue is narrower and more legally grounded: whether the continued use of deadly force remained objectively reasonable once the immediate threat to officers had ended. The prosecution would argue that while the first shot may fall within the margins of lawful reaction, the additional shots crossed that boundary, transforming a potentially justified act into an unjustified one under established use-of-force standards.

BooBear :
I can use Google too. It said:
Minneapolis Public Schools (MPS) have varied start times by school level, but generally, high schools start around 8:30 a.m., with some elementary schools starting later for breakfast, like Kenny Elementary around 9:15 a.m. for breakfast,

Sophos2 : it shouldn't be difficult to know exactly what school so we don't have to wonder since she was in her neighborhood. Go Google that, please and let me know. The kid is 6 so we need elementary, not high school.

Sophos2 :
It seems that forms the basis of what people think are proper responses when they say things like, "Why couldn't he just shoot out the tires" or "Why couldn't he just jump out of the way?"I've seen it in Hollywood productions and it seems reasonable that others do too and may believe it's an accurate portrayal.
Policy language like "should avoid" reflects administrative guidance, not criminal or constitutional mandates. Officers are not criminally liable solely for violating a "should". What matters legally is whether their conduct was reasonable under the circumstances, including imminent threats and reaction time.Yes, I did use interpretive judgment. Welcome to a message board conversation. It happens in court too. The video still shows the officer assessed the scene while recording fellow officers on the opposite side, a previously cooperative driver, and a short distance to maintain visual contact. The officer's choices could quite obviously be seen as a tactical assessment, not reckless disregard, particularly when the situation escalated unpredictably. Using a camera to document events does not automatically excuse unsafe positioning, but it also doesn't render a use of force decision unreasonable.Icy roads, heavy tactical gear, and unexpected driver reactions all affect reaction time and can limit defensive options. These considerations have always been valid and relevant in determining whether an officer had reasonable alternatives at the moment of their use of force decision. Courts and administrative review boards routinely consider these real world limitations when they are tasked with assessing proper use of force.It is true that the officer could have chosen a longer route. But that is a tactical choice, and in retrospect, even he might conclude that a longer route might have been safer IF his objective was his own safety over the safety of his fellow officers. But DHS policy does not require officers to guarantee zero risk, it requires reasonable avoidance. Considering the presence of other unknown instigators/protesters, the positioning of his fellow officers, and the driver's recent behavior, the officer's decision to cross in front of the vehicle can be viewed as a reasonable risk to complete an objective.DHS policy attempts to prevent avoidable deadly force encounters, but it also recognizes that officers often face rapidly changing, unpredictable situations. The "foreseeable, preventable" label must be weighed against real time circumstances. Courts refer to this as the "reasonable officer in the same circumstances" test.

Sophos2 :
I'm trying to watch the last quarter of the Bears/Packers game.Keep the content coming. I'm not going to pull an all-nighter to keep responding. But I'll make some time to finish responding to every point tomorrow.

Cityview is the closest elementary school to 34th and portland with a start time of 8:10. I assume the child was dropped off before then.

Spork :
Response part 3
Saying the case is irrelevant or misleading because it was civil, from another circuit, or did not create a new rule fundamentally misunderstands how constitutional use-of-force law works. No one is arguing that self-defense can never justify lethal force; the controlling rule, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Tennessee v.ersus Garner and reaffirmed in Graham versus Connor, is that deadly force is constitutional only when an officer has an objectively reasonable belief that the person poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and that rule applies nationwide to all law enforcement, including federal agents, regardless of whether a case is civil or criminal. While Sixth Circuit decisions are not binding in Minnesota, they are persuasive authority applying the same Supreme Court standards that Minnesota courts must follow, and recent Supreme Court precedent has made clear that an officer's own reckless or unnecessary conduct leading up to a shooting is part of the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, not something courts are required to ignore. The fact that a case is civil does not make it irrelevant to criminal liability, because federal officers can be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 242 if they willfully violate constitutional rights through unreasonable force, and civil findings often inform how those constitutional standards are understood. Likewise, while ICE does not conduct routine traffic enforcement, ICE agents do have authority to stop or engage vehicles in the course of lawful federal enforcement, but that authority does not expand the constitutional limits on deadly force. Officer language and post-incident demeanor may not by themselves determine legality, but conduct before and during the encounter absolutely matters, especially where training and policy emphasize avoiding standing in front of vehicles and avoiding self-created exigencies. Finally, while actual injuries discovered after the fact are not required to justify a shooting, the absence of evidence that a vehicle posed an unavoidable, imminent threat at the moment force was used is central to the constitutional analysis, because deadly force cannot be justified solely by flight, obstruction, or a situation the officer unnecessarily placed himself into.This is a solid tool by the way.
www.courtlistener.co m/

Spork :
I covered what I wanted to. Go on and watch your game.

BooBear :
Allegedly her child goes to
Southside Family Charter School
Which starts at 8:17am. My statement that she dropped her child off at school was to argue the point she was not harassing them all day if the incident occurred at 9:28am. I have no idea of a timeline of events past the data available and it's doubtful anyone else did when the claims made by Noem, Trump, or Vance decided to advance the narrative they did.

Spork :
With the advancement of technology, law enforcement personnel at all levels are potentially at risk for being outed and harassed for doing their jobs. Which is why it's imperative more than ever that said personnel keep in mind the two bedrock rules of enforcement. That is exercising good judgement and common sense. A lack of those two elements can cause some bad outcomes and thus infuse public resentment.Which goes into the reason why prior administrations, both Republican and Democratic, perhaps chose not to enforce immigration law in particular, and other federal laws in general, in the manner in which we're seeing now. Our system of government heavily relies on the cooperation and support of the people in that they must believe what's being done is justified and reasonable.However, if the people begin to feel for whatever reason that said laws are not enforced fairly, the methods are overly harsh, or there is a perception that certain areas are being targeted more than some others for purely political reasons, that's a problem. Additionally, it is apparent that in our society, a good portion of the population does not like our law enforcement personnel wearing mask in conducting their duties. They just don't!Choosing to wear a badge is not an easy career choice. Never has been, never will be. Which is why more than ever given the times, it's extremely important for both the officers/agents on the street and those in the halls of power to work together in lowering the temperature. That normally begins with collaboration with local and state officials. As they tend to know the people in their jurisdictions a hell of a lot better than the feds. Not to mention the fact that the people trust them more than what they consider outsiders.Anyway, all of this is just food for thought. Make of it what you will.

Sophos2 : they ex husband is also making statements(that you quoted) that he can't back up. You obviously believed that narrative without knowing if it's true or not.