re: In 2020, Walz signed a law allowing an officer to protect themselves against vehicles

quote:

---

What do you personally believe the ‘intent’ of the driver was in this situation?

---

There are different lenses one can apply to this.

What do I think her actual intent was?

In a way, I think she panicked and based on whatever the officers were saying (not sure, but possibly they were telling her to get out of the car), she decided to try to get away.

But in another context, I think she decided to abruptly accelerate through a spot where an officer was standing. Whether her intent was to specifically hit him and murder him or to more innocently hope he moved out of the way in time, it doesn't matter. She abruptly accelerated, endangered the officer's life and put him in the position to consider her a threat. This is a little bit similar to how a drowning person might act irrationally and attack a person trying to save them... with regards to her mental state. But again, it doesn't matter. Her mental state doesn't invalidate the officer's right to protect his life. if you charge an armed officer with a knife or a car, you give him the justification to consider you a threat-- whether you're trying to kill him, whether you're trying to escape, or whether you're sleep-walking / driving and confuse him with a parking spot.

quote:

---

What do you personally believe the ‘intent’ of the driver was in this situation?

---

To drive away from the situation without regard for whether she hurt/injured/killed the officer.

What do you personally think the 'intent' of the driver was?

quote:

---

What do you personally believe the ‘intent’ of the driver was in this situation?

---

To get that Iphone lense treatment.

ICE supporters should make signs with that statute and wave them around in the faces of the agitators.

quote:

---

The law was debunked?

---

As it has been presented in that and other posts exactly (meaning it is the same exact Xwitter post made by multiple accounts) like it? Yes, yes it has. Even your own posts in this thread prove that fact, yet you refuse to acknowledge it.

2025 Minnesota Statutes
Authenticate PDF
Resources
Search Minnesota Statutes
About Minnesota Statutes
2025 Statutes New, Amended or Repealed
2025 Table of Chapters
2025 Statutes Topics (Index)
Chapter 609

Table of Sections
Full Chapter Text
Version List
Section 609.066

Version List
Recent History

2023 Subd. 2 Amended 2023 c 52 art 10 s 8
2020 Subd. 1a New 2020 c 1 s 9
2020 Subd. 2 Amended 2020 c 1 s 10
2001 Subd. 1 Amended 2001 c 127 s 1
Topics

Ammunition
Arrests
Bodily harm
Bullets
Code of criminal procedure
Criminal code
Death
Defenses
Peace officers
Popular names of acts
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).



Once again, it’s all spelled out. I’m sorry that you Liberals FEEL like it doesn’t apply…

quote:

---

well thank God for all his training that he was able to put her out of her misery and be able to save his life.

---

We will all miss her contributions to society, agitating for Bolshevism and the destruction of the United States. Not mention putting cigarettes out on children.

quote:

---

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.

---

So, Police officers can shoot into vehicles which they believe to have people inside.

If:

quote:

---

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;

---

And further,

quote:

---

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

---

So all the nonsense about him standing in front of the car or which way her tires were pointing are meaningless hindsight evaluations of his actions.

Was it reasonable for him to believe that he was in imminent danger of serious bodily injury from her driving?

I think that anyone who would look at this case as blinded information (meaning not giving that it was an ICE investigation or that the person shot was a mother or that it’s a representative of Trump’s admin) would agree that the officer had a reasonable fear of serious bodily injury.

In short, the law does effectively say exactly what the tweet says as you interpret it.

quote:

---

What do you personally believe the ‘intent’ of the driver was in this situation?

---

Aren’t you an attorney? Doesn’t matter. What does intent have to do with anything? You can negligently kill someone without intending to kill them.

What would a reasonable person believe when a car is accelerating right at them? Would a reasonable person believe they want to have a dinner with them? Maybe help change a tire? Maybe run them over.

Great thing is SCOTUS and several lower courts have established this.

quote:

---

You’re straining at gnats per usual.

---

Whatever you say, sweetheart.