Cop shoots dead Licensed Conceal Carry holder (MN)

[charwin95]

Idiot you did not prove me anything. And I told you repeatedly that last thing they want to see is an armed civilians running around in a situations like Dallas. How the hell they know you are a good guy or bad guy? SCREAM AT THEM......... HEY IM THE GOOD GUY......... Try again idiot.

I quoted your post, asshole!

So? That doesn't mean you prove me your bullshit. Try again.

Read post #51 Sealybobo. He also have friends (with S ) that are cops and they don't like armed civilians. Is that a coincidence?

It proves you're full of shit. You say one thing, then you pretend otherwise. Pretty stupid since it's still there.

You are trying to justify your stupidity. Let me repeat again so you can stick to your thick skull. NONE of my 28 cops as security guard will agree with you that armed civilians during active an shootings is a bad idea.
Then you went to your 2nd A bullshit. Stupid fuck. You lost.

That's not what you said, Dipshit. You're trying to walk it back, you should be in politics.

You lost. I never walk back...... And never changed any of my views. I just repeated it for you 3x so you stick to your thick skull.

 

[Divine Wind]

How about waiting for the facts instead of blessing us with your divine wind?

Point out where I haven't, weasel. You're the one with the psychic powers about who is guilty of robbery and who has a CCW permit and who doesn't.

 

[Divine Wind]

Liar. I said we don't know what happened. I said to go ahead and post where I called it a good shooting. Posting your typical "divine wind" is a poor substitute, that won't work. Go find it and post it instead of being a little cvnt, OK?

Quit being such a weasel, grow a fucking spine and admit you posted this bullshit:

Looks like they were on the lookout for an armed robbery suspect, he matched the description, that's why he was pulled over. It also explains why his sidekick wasn't exactly surprised. No gun permit, she lied. And the liberals gobbled it up and cops were slaughtered.

 

[Divine Wind]

I would sure like to see more facts and see who that cop was. I'm mostly believing the story of the woman at this point as well

See more facts is a great idea, but to believe the woman's story over anyone elses at this time is bullshit. It's he said/she said without corroborating testimony and physical evidence.

 

[leftwinger]

Dude in car had gun few days earlier when he armed robbery carton of Newports and some cash? Reasonable suspicion.

many of you owe Danny an apology (or partial? ) I think he called it all early on but you don't like his choice of words always. When you all perfect, let us know.

 

[jon_berzerk]

the gun was legal

that is actually still an unknown

Agreed. Legal or not, permit or not, to be a lawful shooting, he had to produce a gun and the police officer had to have a reasonable fear he'd use it. Having an illegal gun without a permit is not a justifiable reason for killing someone.

to be a lawful shooting, he had to produce a gun

that actually is not true

 

[Divine Wind]

Yes we know, anytime someone criticizes your beloved Gestapo, they're 'advocating violence.' We get it.

Please quit advocating violence against police. The FBI has your posts. It's up to them whether to discuss it with you or simply put you under surveillance.

 

[Divine Wind]

the gun was legal

that is actually still an unknown

Agreed. Legal or not, permit or not, to be a lawful shooting, he had to produce a gun and the police officer had to have a reasonable fear he'd use it. Having an illegal gun without a permit is not a justifiable reason for killing someone.

to be a lawful shooting, he had to produce a gun

that actually is not true

So you think a police officer can just shoot him for being black? Reaching under his seat?

609.066 - 2015 Minnesota Statutes
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. 2.Use of deadly force.

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 when necessary:

(1) to protect the peace officer or another from apparent death or great bodily harm;

(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 involving the use or threatened use of deadly force; or

(3) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm if the person's apprehension is delayed.

 

[Divine Wind]

Yes he would have had to see the gun of course. Now can you say if he did or didn't see the gun he might have reached for ? I can't, so it has to be fully investigated before have all the answers. There are some strange circumstances that open the door for investigative questions & answers to be pursued in the case, don't you agree ?

No idea whether he saw a gun or not which is why I'm not passing judgment on the officer nor the victim. All I'm saying are the circumstances required before deadly force can be used. In this case, he'd have had to see a gun before a shooting would be justified. Mere paranoia of seeing a black man reach under a seat isn't sufficient reason.

 

[Divine Wind]

Dude in car had gun few days earlier when he armed robbery carton of Newports and some cash? Reasonable suspicion.

many of you owe Danny an apology (or partial? ) I think he called it all early on but you don't like his choice of words always. When you all perfect, let us know.

Danny is a blowhard and nobody owes him anything for posting guesses online. Facts are all that matter here.

We can, and have, discussed circumstances where deadly force can be used, but saying the man deserved to be shot for reaching under his seat, that the woman was a crack whore and they were selling the little kid in the back or any other unsubstantiated bullshit is just a lot of hot air. You know, just like Danny.

 

[charwin95]

Liar. I said we don't know what happened. I said to go ahead and post where I called it a good shooting. Posting your typical "divine wind" is a poor substitute, that won't work. Go find it and post it instead of being a little cvnt, OK?

Quit being such a weasel, grow a fucking spine and admit you posted this bullshit:

Looks like they were on the lookout for an armed robbery suspect, he matched the description, that's why he was pulled over. It also explains why his sidekick wasn't exactly surprised. No gun permit, she lied. And the liberals gobbled it up and cops were slaughtered.

Dungiecow ........... Weasel.
Are you this ba a a a a a ad? Are you and Dannyboy related?

 

[leftwinger]

Bullhockey, read last part of #688. Don't see "must see gun" ? Reasonable suspicion,

 

[Divine Wind]

Bullhockey, read last part of #688. Don't see "must see gun" ? Reasonable suspicion,

I'm content to let a judge decide on that one. However, if we were to take bets on the outcome, I don't see how deadly force was justified per the statute so I'd bet against the shooter.

Hint: Nowhere in the statute does it say "suspicion", reasonable or otherwise.

 

[leftwinger]

My point is I don't know. ?..lol. ahem......

The use of deadly force above looks more like a judgement call? I realize they can't just willy-nilly go around shooting until they find the right suspect........

 

[Divine Wind]

My point is I don't know. ?..lol. ahem......

The use of deadly force above looks more like a judgement call? I realize they can't just willy-nilly go around shooting until they find the right suspect........

Yes, a judgement call but based on specific criteria. First, the suspect has to fit the criteria justifying the used of deadly force. Second, the police officer has to decide whether or not to use deadly force.

There have been many cases where police have had the criteria to use deadly force, but chose not to do so.

 

[2aguy]

You said arm criminals, rights are reserved for those that haven't lost them through their own misdeeds. You are also mischaracterizing what I said. I said if you were asking them about rights they were sworn to uphold, that were absolutely none of your business I can't see a cop working there. I doubt you even have a business.

Who are you to tell its none of my business? My company my rule. I also do NOT accommodate Muslim prayers but I allow them to pray during their breaks or lunch time and not during working time.
Why in the world they I will offend them by talking about 2nd amendment? I never said I ask them directly about 2nd amendment. We talked about arming civilians and self/home defense. But they do not agree in arming all civilians.
Are you saying that they will make financial decisions based on 2nd amendment? Are you saying just bc of 2nd amendment or guns I do not have a business? Do you realize how dumb you are talking to me?
And I don't give a flying fuck if you believe me or not.

No, it's none of your business. It's like asking someone who they voted for. I'd tell you to go pound sand. Security guards aren't cops and no way 28 cops are going to be against the 2nd amendment, you're full of shit.

You are putting words in my mouth. Let me repeat it again. Where in my post that I asked them directly about 2nd? I talked to them casually about guns and violence and based from their opinion. NO they do not like armed civilians in a situation like Dallas the other night. Try again.

I haven't tried anything. I proved you're full of shit. The conversation went like this:

ME
"Most cops are pro 2nd amendment, maybe the ones you know don't trust you. With modern equipment the police probably already know if the auto registered owner is licensed. But the narrative that the guy was shot for being black is exactly what led to the Dallas massacre. You are part of the problem."

YOU
"I have a total of 28 LEO working as a part time security guards. None of them will agree with you. They do NOT like armed civilians.........."

Idiot you did not prove me anything. And I told you repeatedly that last thing they want to see is an armed civilians running around in a situations like Dallas. How the hell they know you are a good guy or bad guy? SCREAM AT THEM......... HEY IM THE GOOD GUY......... Try again idiot.

They had guys in the march with slung rifles........and they didn't shoot them did they? An actual shooting, with a sniper, with civilians in the crowd with rifles....and the cops somehow knew they weren't the bad guys.....

Nothing you guys imagine in your heads is even remotely true about guns....

 

[jon_berzerk]

the gun was legal

that is actually still an unknown

Agreed. Legal or not, permit or not, to be a lawful shooting, he had to produce a gun and the police officer had to have a reasonable fear he'd use it. Having an illegal gun without a permit is not a justifiable reason for killing someone.

to be a lawful shooting, he had to produce a gun

that actually is not true

So you think a police officer can just shoot him for being black? Reaching under his seat?

609.066 - 2015 Minnesota Statutes
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. 2.Use of deadly force.

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 when necessary:

(1) to protect the peace officer or another from apparent death or great bodily harm;

(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 involving the use or threatened use of deadly force; or

(3) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm if the person's apprehension is delayed.

why are you lying about what i posted makes you look like a low life troll

is that what you are asshole

you posted this to be a lawful shooting, he had to produce a gun

which is obviously incorrect

the perp does not have to produce a a gun or any other weapon

you didnt read 609.065 did ya

609.065

JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.

in addition clause one of your link

(1) to protect the peace officer or another from apparent death or great bodily harm;

the cop said he saw his firearm

and was refusing lawful orders

oh btw it is looking like the pistol was exposed in his waistband

 

[jon_berzerk]

Yes he would have had to see the gun of course. Now can you say if he did or didn't see the gun he might have reached for ? I can't, so it has to be fully investigated before have all the answers. There are some strange circumstances that open the door for investigative questions & answers to be pursued in the case, don't you agree ?

No idea whether he saw a gun or not which is why I'm not passing judgment on the officer nor the victim. All I'm saying are the circumstances required before deadly force can be used. In this case, he'd have had to see a gun before a shooting would be justified. Mere paranoia of seeing a black man reach under a seat isn't sufficient reason.

he'd have had to see a gun before a shooting

although the cop said he saw a gun

he does not need to see one to use deadly force

 

[jon_berzerk]

Bullhockey, read last part of #688. Don't see "must see gun" ? Reasonable suspicion,

i didnt see it either

 

[Vigilante]

• Police kill more whites than blacks, but minority deaths generate more outrage
  The Washington Times ^
  Analysis contradicts widespread views about racial targetsNobel Prize-winning novelist Toni Morrison says she wants to see an officer shoot an unarmed white teenager in the back before agreeing that the “conversation about race” is over, but she almost certainly already has received her wish. An analysis released last week shows that more white people died at the hands of law enforcement than those of any other race in the last two years, even as the Justice Department, social-justice groups and media coverage focus on black victims of police force. As researchers are quick to point out, FBI data on police...