Another "special rules" killing. http://www.startribune.com/nation/18169799.html

I knew this post was coming. Yep, no way a "regular person" gets off on this type of thing.

You mean the cops AREN'T are friends?!@# I'm aghast!

Personally, I wouldn't piss on 'em if they were on fire.

And tho I've never had any stops/arrests I would NEVER cooperate. Period.

"Chat with my attorney. This interview is ended and you are dismissed."

I 100% agree that this case is a travesty, and I agree that in most situations outside of a speeding ticket the first words out of my mouth would be "I want to have my attorney present", but booming, you're way over the top for me. I've worked with a lot of good officers in my day, and most of them are doing their jobs with respect.

This is going to turn into a bash fest, so I'm out of this one.

-Mark

You're free to disagree, but your comments about police officers are as disgusting as the incident it'self.

Getting back on-topic...(quotes are from MSNBC)



I wish I would have that sort of criteria applied to me if I had to shoot in self-defense!



How is this relevant? Gut feelings don't give permission to shoot, and somebody being scared doesn't count either, even if they have a badge.



So in my mind, if I "know" someone has a gun, I can shoot?



So it's ok for cops to spray and pray?



-Mark

What really worries me about this case, is that according to CNN this morning, the cops justified it by saying Bell was trying to run them over with his vehicle. Now I take a look at the photo in the Strib, and look how many bullet holes are in the side of his vehicle... Last time I checked, I can't really drive my car sideways, even if I was intent on hitting an LEO...

You mean facts are supposed to line up with the cover up?

Why invest that much in a judge's pocket if you are going to second guess a verdict by looking at the facts. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

that is a great phrase. I have had nothing but professionalism from the St. Paul PD, nothing but the opposite from Minneapolis. There appears to be significant differences just between these two jursidictions & therefore I'd be apt not to generalize. Now I am going to get dressed and spend another day trying to get back property the MPD took (during a no-knock based on bad information) without cause back in December and hasn't yet returned.

edited to add -

Aparently the reason it is difficult to get my items back is that I am not being investigated and no criminal charges are being pursued . . . so the cops "can't" clear the case because I am neither being aquitted or prosecuted .. . or even accused. If I was being aquitted or prosecuted, they could tick a box on a form, but since I am just peripheral to what turned out to be a bogus case in family court . . . I can't seem to get my lawfully owned property back in anything like a timely manner.

Unless someone catches it on video, the police seem to often "get away" with a lot of tasering and shooting where it may not exactly be justified.

Of course with a lot of out of control drunken parties, violent mobs and criminals, I can feel for the police too. The media makes front page news out of the exceptions and always will.

Without actually being on the jury and seeing ALL the evidence, how do we know we wouldn't have voted the same way? Just my thoughts...

That's true. Our condemnation of these officers is a little reactionary. There are still lots of pieces of information that don't click.

1) the bullet holes on the side of the car when the victim was "trying to run the officers over".

2) the fact that the officer emptied his mag, reloaded, and emptied again when he thought he saw a gun, but there was no return fire...

While I can't say for sure they're guilty, what I can say is that something doesn't feel right...

Ok, I have a question.

If a LEO opens fire on you without provocation, and you are in imminent fear of GBH or death, are you allowed to defend yourself? For the sake of this question, assume that you are well below the .04 BAC restriction for carrying, and that you are doing nothing that is not 100% legal and acceptable.

Also, for the record, just so there is no way this can be misconstrued, I have ZERO interest in shooting at ANYONE, LEO or not. This is NOT my way of finding a loophole to justifiably shoot a LEO.

Martin Treptow is in the process of finding out. There are some complications to his issues (verbal exchange, jockeying for position in vehicles) and also some contributing factors (his wife and children in the car, Officer was undercover and did not identify himself).

I guess that depends, do you want to die on the streets, or do you want to die in a cell?

I think barring any electronic witnesses, mental health history of the officer, a million dollar legal defense fund, and many other factors you would be up a creek if you were involved in a gun battle with a police officer, regardless of your righteousness. (sp?) I am not saying that there would be a police cover up or anything... it would just be very hard to get yourself out of that hole.

The Jury didn’t get a say in this one…


As far as "Unless someone catches it on video"
lets not forget about Rodney King. It did him no good to have video.

It is just amazing to me that something like this happens in this day and age. Here’s another little brain squeezer for ya all. Lets say Mr. Bell was a legally carrying a gun (yes I realize this is NY but play along). So Mr. Bell pulls his gun to protect himself from the spray of bullets the officers had unleashed. Then what? Bell would have been shooting in self defense but he would have been painted as the criminal. This would not have even made the national news. What if he had shot an officer and lived? He would have never seen the light of day ever again, even though he was just trying to survive. Sometimes I can't tell who the bad guys are anymore…

OOPS! Didn't catch that part about no jury.

The cops that beat Rodney King did end up being convicted on a civil rights charge after beating the state charges.