Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 6:59 pm

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 13 posts ] 
 New troubles for Jason Anderson 
Author Message
 Post subject: New troubles for Jason Anderson
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:21 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
Jason Anderson, the cop who was cleared by a jury in the Fong Lee lawsuit, has some new problems.
Image
He's been charged with 5th degree domestic assault.
Quote:
The Minneapolis Police officer cleared in May of a wrongful death lawsuit for shooting a 19-year-old is in trouble Monday.

Jason Andersen, the officer who shot and killed Fong Lee in 2006, has now been charged with domestic assault.

Three weeks ago, the jury found no wrong doing after shooting and killing of the Minneapolis teenager.

But on Monday, Andersen found himself pleading not guilty to fifth-degree degree domestic assault. While he is still on the job, the department has launched an internal affairs investigation.

Andersen was not home hours after being released from the Sherburne County Jail. He was arrested early Sunday for allegedly assaulting a female acquaintance.

Although police gave 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS few details of the incident, they say the crime happened at Andersen’s home in Big Lake.

In a statement, Andersen’s attorney Fred Bruno says his client and the woman involved were both arrested.

"Mr. Andersen did not commit any crime. In fact, this is a situation where the alleged victim was herself charged with an assault against Mr. Andersen," Bruno explained.

Lee’s family reacted with a statement stating that they were "not surprised to hear the recent news regarding Officer Anderson. We can't comment any further since the appeal is still in process. We wish the jury that cleared him at the trial would tune in on the news and hear this as well."

Andersen was released from jail on his own recognizance. A judge ordered he not use drugs or alcohol, submit to random drug testing, and that he not have any contact with the victim.

Minneapolis Police say they cannot comment on the case, since it is under review. They did say Andersen is not on leave, however they could release the next time he’s expected to report to work.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: New troubles for Jason Anderson
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:08 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:24 pm
Posts: 158
Location: Rochester
He does look good in DOC orange. :twisted:


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: New troubles for Jason Anderson
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:46 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:46 pm
Posts: 845
Location: Saint Paul
Another perfect candidate for the Gang Strike Task Force.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New troubles for Jason Anderson
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:55 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
Traveler wrote:
Another perfect candidate for the Gang Strike Task Force.

True. He's already got a criminal defense attorney, after all.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: New troubles for Jason Anderson
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:47 pm 
Gun-Toting Liberal

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:14 pm
Posts: 181
Location: Ellsworth, WI
Why is a MPLS cop living and beating his girlfriend in Big Lake? Shouldn't he be living in the town he is policing? Oh and not hitting people.

_________________
http://scott-randomassociations.blogspot.com/

"We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments." Nordyke v. King 4/20/09


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: New troubles for Jason Anderson
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:59 pm 
In the time out chair
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:22 pm
Posts: 106
Not defending nor attacking. In reality, many if not most LEOs who are involved in a shooting suffer personal consequences because of it. Even in the cleanest and clearest cases of self defense, Officers suffer an extremely high rate of emotional issues resulting from such shooting. I believe the retirement rate isnear 40% for officers involved in shootings. IIRC.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: New troubles for Jason Anderson
PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:07 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:46 pm
Posts: 845
Location: Saint Paul
Blued Steel wrote:
Not defending nor attacking. In reality, many if not most LEOs who are involved in a shooting suffer personal consequences because of it. Even in the cleanest and clearest cases of self defense, Officers suffer an extremely high rate of emotional issues resulting from such shooting. I believe the retirement rate isnear 40% for officers involved in shootings. IIRC.


Or, playing devil's advocate, could it be that underlying behavioral problems could have lead to the officer shooting one, no, make that two, no, make that five, no make that eight times into/at a young man, could also be manifesting itself in assault on a young woman?


Last edited by Traveler on Sat Jun 20, 2009 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New troubles for Jason Anderson
PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:20 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 2264
Location: Eden Prairie
Blued Steel wrote:
Not defending nor attacking. In reality, many if not most LEOs who are involved in a shooting suffer personal consequences because of it. Even in the cleanest and clearest cases of self defense, Officers suffer an extremely high rate of emotional issues resulting from such shooting. I believe the retirement rate isnear 40% for officers involved in shootings. IIRC.


Get counseling. Go to church. Take a jog. Get drunk. But hit someone in a domestic? I stop caring.

And I'm far more inclined to think along Traveler's hypothesis with this scumbag.

JMO. I hope he gets to meet Bubba. Or maybe a friend of the kid he shot.

-Mark


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: New troubles for Jason Anderson
PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:28 pm 
In the time out chair
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:22 pm
Posts: 106
Again, being neutral, but thats a pretty flippant answer.

What criteria do you have by which to judge his reaction to what has happened?

What did you do the last time you had to shoot someone? Did you high five your buddies and go home and sleep well?

Again, being neutral, but have you been in his shoes? Have you had to shoot a kid lately? Have you been in a chase where someone has called in a gun and you are involved? When was the last time you faced a live shooter?

I think its a little damned presumptive to take that attitude unless you have the experience.





From the report, it seems that the woman was involved as well, not just a reluctant recipient.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: New troubles for Jason Anderson
PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:45 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:46 pm
Posts: 845
Location: Saint Paul
Quote:
What criteria do you . . .? What did you . . . you had to . . .? Did you . . .? . . . but have you . . .? Have you . . .? Have you . . . and you are . . .? . . . last time you . . .? . . . unless you have . . .


If you want to support the officer, fine. I do not see how attacking other posters helps your viewpoint. By definition, an opinion cannot be wrong, even yours.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New troubles for Jason Anderson
PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:53 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 2264
Location: Eden Prairie
Blued Steel wrote:
Again, being neutral, but thats a pretty flippant answer.

What criteria do you have by which to judge his reaction to what has happened?

What did you do the last time you had to shoot someone? Did you high five your buddies and go home and sleep well?

Again, being neutral, but have you been in his shoes? Have you had to shoot a kid lately? Have you been in a chase where someone has called in a gun and you are involved? When was the last time you faced a live shooter?

I think its a little damned presumptive to take that attitude unless you have the experience.





From the report, it seems that the woman was involved as well, not just a reluctant recipient.


Last time I faced a live shooter was 1998. His gun misfed. I wasn't allowed to be armed as a private citizen (even working private security in this case), as I lived in WI at the time. Never had to shoot somebody, and hope to God I never do. I've had to hurt people in self-defense. Didn't like it, but I didn't go beat up on others afterwards. It comes with certain lines of work, which I'm long done with.

Part of the psych workup for LEO jobs is supposed to help you face the question of whether you can take a life. It's also something that you should seriously consider as a permit holder. At least it was in Wisconsin with the department I went through it for. But for my last-minute decision to finish college, I'd have accepted that job offer in WI and moved from correctional work to full LEO. Years later, I'm happy with my choice, but it makes me doubly pissed to see people who have certain types of personalities running around with a badge.

Most domestics are two-way. Note that in this case, other officers obviously found enough wrong to arrest one of their own. :?

And I'm waiting to hear the results of the appeal in the Fong case. The jury instructions were...odd...enough that I'm not sure this guy didn't get away with murder.

I'm fortunate enough to have a number of cops as friends, and I would consider all of them to have gone into the field for the right reasons. There are many departments even in the metro that I have lots of respect for, based on my dealings with them (e.g. St. Louis Park, HCSO, and especially Eden Prairie...just to name a few). Good, service-oriented departments. Not to say you can't get a bad apple, it certainly happens. But more often, this kind of crap is institutional, and it starts with departments hiring people who have no business being anywhere near a squad car.

-Mark


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: New troubles for Jason Anderson
PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:56 pm 
In the time out chair
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:22 pm
Posts: 106
Traveler wrote:
Quote:
What criteria do you . . .? What did you . . . you had to . . .? Did you . . .? . . . but have you . . .? Have you . . .? Have you . . . and you are . . .? . . . last time you . . .? . . . unless you have . . .


If you want to support the officer, fine. I do not see how attacking other posters helps your viewpoint. By definition, an opinion cannot be wrong, even yours.



If that was an attack, I apologize, I felt it to be a valid question when he responded
Quote:
Get counseling. Go to church. Take a jog. Get drunk. But hit someone in a domestic? I stop caring.


Spend some time looking up the stats on police officers who suffer forms of PTSD after a Officer Involved shooting.

Notice I have not posted on either of the dog shooting threads that are running, bad law enforcement deserves to be exposed and ridiculed.

I have no idea what happened on that school grounds when the kid was shot, but if you run, you gotta expect an officer in pursuit is going to think the worst.

The very fact that he shot the kid more than once, for me at least, leads me to believe he believed he saw a weapon.
An accident or mistake is a couple of rounds or a single shot, followed by the sickening realization that a monumental error had been made. Running after a Perp, who becomes a perp when he runs, no matter the previous situation, puts the officer into the him or me frame of mind. If the kid had gone to the arms up or hand on his head pose, or proned out, he would be alive, but he ran, then turned and faced the officer in what he views to be a threatening mode. The officer has a tenth of a tenth of a second to decide shoot or not, if his mind saw a weapon, I believe he believed he was in a life or death situation and acted accordingly.

Now the officer involved is put through the ringer of press, community outrage, self doubt, official review, etc, and it takes its toll. That is why I asked if Mark had the experience of dealing with taking a life. It does not go away.

Despite all the tests that the PD's put in front of you for psych eval and profiling, no one can tell how it will effect them. Some can say "it was God's will that it worked out that way," and live with it. Some have no moral compass and its just "cleaning the gene pool" some are in the middle and it eats and eats.

On the basis of these tests, seeing how well you will hold up with the taking of a life. Thats a risky road to take, one hand says the ideal candidate will blindly follow orders and protocol, punch three COM into the bad guy and be home mowing the lawn whistling while he works five hours later. Another hand says you want an Officer who is so completely opposed to taking a life that he will do what ever is needed to spare that life, to take every conceivable route to avoid that event. But that officer hesitates when the need is very clear, and at best him/herself is wounded, or worst, killed precedent to everyone else in the situation being killed.

I want humans wearing the blue.

That comes with human frailties. It sucks when stuff like this happens, I am not in the officers favor, nor am I condemning him, I am only suggesting that ripping him when one is not in his shoes is perhaps unjust.

i am not being hostile here, I am not attacking anyone, I disagree with someone's content of the post, but I am not calling them evil, or stupid, I am just saying that I feel there needs to be some understanding of the stress and results of those stresses that an officer involved in a shooting is going to face. conpassion in this case does not seem to be unwarranted.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: New troubles for Jason Anderson
PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:16 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 2264
Location: Eden Prairie
Blued Steel wrote:
Traveler wrote:
Quote:
What criteria do you . . .? What did you . . . you had to . . .? Did you . . .? . . . but have you . . .? Have you . . .? Have you . . . and you are . . .? . . . last time you . . .? . . . unless you have . . .


If you want to support the officer, fine. I do not see how attacking other posters helps your viewpoint. By definition, an opinion cannot be wrong, even yours.



If that was an attack, I apologize, I felt it to be a valid question when he responded
Quote:
Get counseling. Go to church. Take a jog. Get drunk. But hit someone in a domestic? I stop caring.


Spend some time looking up the stats on police officers who suffer forms of PTSD after a Officer Involved shooting.

Notice I have not posted on either of the dog shooting threads that are running, bad law enforcement deserves to be exposed and ridiculed.

I have no idea what happened on that school grounds when the kid was shot, but if you run, you gotta expect an officer in pursuit is going to think the worst.

The very fact that he shot the kid more than once, for me at least, leads me to believe he believed he saw a weapon.
An accident or mistake is a couple of rounds or a single shot, followed by the sickening realization that a monumental error had been made. Running after a Perp, who becomes a perp when he runs, no matter the previous situation, puts the officer into the him or me frame of mind. If the kid had gone to the arms up or hand on his head pose, or proned out, he would be alive, but he ran, then turned and faced the officer in what he views to be a threatening mode. The officer has a tenth of a tenth of a second to decide shoot or not, if his mind saw a weapon, I believe he believed he was in a life or death situation and acted accordingly.

Now the officer involved is put through the ringer of press, community outrage, self doubt, official review, etc, and it takes its toll. That is why I asked if Mark had the experience of dealing with taking a life. It does not go away.

Despite all the tests that the PD's put in front of you for psych eval and profiling, no one can tell how it will effect them. Some can say "it was God's will that it worked out that way," and live with it. Some have no moral compass and its just "cleaning the gene pool" some are in the middle and it eats and eats.

On the basis of these tests, seeing how well you will hold up with the taking of a life. Thats a risky road to take, one hand says the ideal candidate will blindly follow orders and protocol, punch three COM into the bad guy and be home mowing the lawn whistling while he works five hours later. Another hand says you want an Officer who is so completely opposed to taking a life that he will do what ever is needed to spare that life, to take every conceivable route to avoid that event. But that officer hesitates when the need is very clear, and at best him/herself is wounded, or worst, killed precedent to everyone else in the situation being killed.

I want humans wearing the blue.

That comes with human frailties. It sucks when stuff like this happens, I am not in the officers favor, nor am I condemning him, I am only suggesting that ripping him when one is not in his shoes is perhaps unjust.

i am not being hostile here, I am not attacking anyone, I disagree with someone's content of the post, but I am not calling them evil, or stupid, I am just saying that I feel there needs to be some understanding of the stress and results of those stresses that an officer involved in a shooting is going to face. conpassion in this case does not seem to be unwarranted.


That's a very well-stated response, and there are valid points in there. You're right, nobody really knows how they'll truly react to taking a life. It's something I hope everyone (not just LEOs) who carries a gun has asked themselves, and it's something that I know a number of instructors include a discussion of in their carry classes.

The kid screwed up by running, no doubt about it. The question is, did the officer fire because a) the kid really did have a gun, b) he THOUGHT the kid had a gun, or c) because he simply lost it. Option A, there's nothing to forgive. Option B, you know what, I'll give the benefit of doubt to the officer in many cases...except in this case where a gun with no DNA evidence or fingerprints appeared... Option C, tragic, but it's a crime on the part of the officer.

You've got to be able to control your emotions in that line of work. It's a hard thing to demand, because, as you said, we want humans wearing the blue...but not all people are cut out for that career path. There's a part of me that still wishes I'd accepted the job offer, but there's a lot of me that was just tired of what I was doing at the time. I don't miss worrying about getting Hep C or HIV, I don't miss wondering if the next time I do a bed check is going to be the time when someone hits me over the head when I walk through a bedroom door, I don't miss dealing with guys who think a 6 year-old is sexy, and I certainly don't miss walking in on a fresh suicide. "Halfway" facilities for all of the above, to answer the obvious question.

One of the hardest traits is that on top of every other requirement, you must have a sense of compassion. Case in point: I spent hours one night comforting a 19 year old drug offender who had just gotten word that the mother of his baby had gotten drunk and thrown the kid into a wall when she found out he might get custody following his release, which was supposed to be the next morning. I finished my shift, went home, and cried. I dare anyone to have done otherwise.

Police, corrections, parole / probation, it's a nasty world. You don't get to see enough of the good stuff in life, and you get jaded.

I'm harsh in this one because the shooting smells absolutely rotten, and I truly cannot abide any man striking a woman (self-defense not included, of course...there's a long story there, but you need to know me well enough to have a drink with me in order to hear that one). If it was self-defense, I find it hard to believe that a LEO would have been arrested AND charged. It's a major trigger of mine, and I'll admit to having a very short fuse on the topic.

I don't take any personal umbrage at your questions, and this discussion, if nothing else, reminds us that LEOs are human. I answered them brusquely, perhaps, and that may be my cynical nature showing itself (some of the folks around here who know me well are saying, "Mark? Cynical? Nah..." and laughing their butts off). If I seem like I'm overly hard on the boys and girls in blue, it's not because I hate the badge or the people wearing them. FAR from it. I just believe that we are seeing more and more of the wrong people getting into that line of work for the wrong reasons, and I want it to stop.

-Mark


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 13 posts ] 

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group