Yet again.

[Sparko]

The trial of the police officer is happening now and she is currently being cross examined by the prosecution (watching on Fox)

[Cow Poke]

It's been mentioned earlier that she was actually an instructor, but I wonder, how extensive was her recent field experience? Is this a case of someone who might be an excellent instructor with a great amount of book learning but who is deficient in the area of practical experience?

And "instructing" does not reinforce muscle memory in the instructor.

[Mountain Man]

It's been mentioned earlier that she was actually an instructor, but I wonder, how extensive was her recent field experience? Is this a case of someone who might be an excellent instructor with a great amount of book learning but who is deficient in the area of practical experience?

[Gondwanaland]

What I keep wondering --- she has her Glock in her hand, but she's yelling Taser! Taser! Taser!......

Did any of the other police officers notice this? No doubt, there will be a trial, and no doubt, more information like that will be forthcoming.

(I'm sure that will be included in the revised training -- others to verify you're doing what you're saying)

They likely did not notice. In situations like that, the tunnel vision is strong. Their attention would be firmly on the guy trying to escape or grab a possible weapon.

In fact that's the entire reason they're trained to say "taser taser taser", so the others know what is happening while their focus is on the suspect.

[Cow Poke]

something else: She should have been wearing the Taser on the non-dominant side. Not sure if she didn't follow procedure or if she was that "out of it" that she didn't realize she drew from the wrong side.

The Brooklyn Center police manual states that officers must position Tasers "in a reaction-side holster on the side opposite the duty weapon." It also says officers need to be trained at least annually, and the training should include "performing reaction-hand draws or cross-draws to reduce the possibility of accidentally drawing and firing a firearm."
https://www.reuters.com/business/aer...ta-2021-04-13/

As far as I can tell, she was properly wearing her taser on the non-dominant side -- just didn't "cross draw" to get it - and I still think other officers should have noticed that.

[Sparko]

something else: She should have been wearing the Taser on the non-dominant side. Not sure if she didn't follow procedure or if she was that "out of it" that she didn't realize she drew from the wrong side.

The Brooklyn Center police manual states that officers must position Tasers "in a reaction-side holster on the side opposite the duty weapon." It also says officers need to be trained at least annually, and the training should include "performing reaction-hand draws or cross-draws to reduce the possibility of accidentally drawing and firing a firearm."
https://www.reuters.com/business/aer...ta-2021-04-13/

[Cow Poke]

With the charge being second degree (manslaughter), and really no conceivable extenuating circumstances that would make the shooting not her fault, I would not be surprised if some sort of plea isn't reached and there never is a trial.

Well, yeah, there may not be a criminal trial, but that doesn't preclude a civil trial. There again, the city might settle with the victim's family...

In any case, expect more "mostly peaceful" protests.

[rogue06]

What I keep wondering --- she has her Glock in her hand, but she's yelling Taser! Taser! Taser!......

Did any of the other police officers notice this? No doubt, there will be a trial, and no doubt, more information like that will be forthcoming.

(I'm sure that will be included in the revised training -- others to verify you're doing what you're saying)

With the charge being second degree (manslaughter), and really no conceivable extenuating circumstances that would make the shooting not her fault, I would not be surprised if some sort of plea isn't reached and there never is a trial.

[Cow Poke]

What I keep wondering --- she has her Glock in her hand, but she's yelling Taser! Taser! Taser!......

Did any of the other police officers notice this? No doubt, there will be a trial, and no doubt, more information like that will be forthcoming.

(I'm sure that will be included in the revised training -- others to verify you're doing what you're saying)

[Cow Poke]

...
Interestingly enough, it would often be AFTER we released the suspect and they're driving away that the information finally comes back from LEADS/NCIC, and you'd either have to initiate the stop again (this time both you and the subject know there's a problem), or put out a bulletin to find and apprehend. MANY times, the subject was "too gone" by then....

I remember a time I had let a subject drive off, then I realized I still had his Driver's License. I went after him to pull him over to give him his ID, and he rolled down the window and started yelling, "I know, I know, I have WARRANTS!!!!"

He very willingly surrendered, and AFTER I had him in handcuffs, the dispatch finally came through with the information that the subject I had stopped had warrants.

[Cow Poke]

That was very common back in my day - "we can talk in my car" - which, of course, necessitated a coded messaging system if dispatch needed to advise that the person was a wanted and/or dangerous person. Mind you - back then (mid 70's) we didn't have instant communication and confirmation of warrants and such. But there was still a sense of respect for police that the "bad actor" was extremely rare.....

I had forgotten all about this ---

• when we had a suspect stopped,
• you would radio the information to dispatch
• dispatch would enter the information into - basically a teletype machine - with person's name and dob and/or SSN
• dispatch would wait for that information to be teletyped back (LEADS - Law Enforcement Agency Data System and NCIC - National Crime Information Center)
• when that information was received back to dispatch, dispatch would...
  • if there is a warrant - ask, "10-37?" which was asking "can the suspect hear this transmission?"
  • That, alone, would get your hackles up
  • then, if you answered no - dispatch would advice you of the warrant
  • if you answered 10-53 (yes, subject is within earshot), dispatch would simply respond (in a very calm voice) with a code to let you know the severity of the warrant (A clever dispatcher would often address this to another unit making it sound like unrelated radio traffic)
  • Other units would hear this and know you needed help - or not

Interestingly enough, it would often be AFTER we released the suspect and they're driving away that the information finally comes back from LEADS/NCIC, and you'd either have to initiate the stop again (this time both you and the subject know there's a problem), or put out a bulletin to find and apprehend. MANY times, the subject was "too gone" by then.

These days, the "Wants and Warrants" is pretty much instant.

[eider]

Sometimes, and what I think may be the case here, a police officer is simply not cut out to be a police officer due to insecurity issues, fear, etc --- and they can fake it for a long time until the situation gets out of control.

Isn't that so strange? I saw them come and then watched them crack up and go. The ones that looked and sounded so hard were not only total liabilities with expensive bad stops, but on really bad situations they let their mates down.
I knew a brilliant female retail thief catcher with on incredible arrest rate in the more difficult and dangerous DIY store environs. She was tiny, about 7 stone on 4'11". She could handle just about anything. But every 28 days or so she went blooming mental and it was then that she would get hurt.

I had a partner once who was always a "tough guy" cop, but one night we had to hunt down an escaped convict, and there was a suspicion that this escapee was hiding in the attic of a home under construction. My partner got there first, and motioned for ME to go up the stairs to check the attic. I could see the FEAR in his eyes, as he realized this was one of the most undesirable 'searches' you can imagine --- where your head is the first thing that appears to the victim, and HE knows where you're going to come in, and YOU don't have a clue which of the 360degrees he may be hiding in.

Yep..... there you go. The most steady ops under duress were always the quiet ones, in.my experience anyway.

I'm a wee bit cynical on that -- I think he was pretty well destined to get in trouble with the law from his own bad choices, but - no - I wouldn't wish that on him.

I figured that about him. Regardless he will become the sweetest heart in that family now.

[Sparko]

Ironically, well after networks like Fox had reported that Wright had a warrant out for his arrest on the charge of attempted aggravated robbery after he allegedly held a woman at gunpoint while choking her in an attempt to take $820 from her in 2019, you had former Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill on MSNBC's Morning Joe program angrily proclaiming that Wright hadn't been accused of any serious crimes and literally said it wasn't like he was "an armed robber."

Gotta wonder what she calls holding up someone with a gun and stealing $820.

She also repeated the dubious claim that Wright was unaware of the warrant because he supposedly never received notice of a hearing. While I can't speak for Minneapolis, Minnesota EVERY jurisdiction that I'm familiar with informs you of your trial date when you are being released.

even if he didn't know, the fact was that he knew when he was trying to avoid arrest. And again, while that might have justified the use of a tazer, it didn't justify being shot. So while he takes the blame for initiating the incident, the officer still has to take the blame for her mistake. Sad case all around.

And more people will get hurt because of the "mostly peaceful protests"

[rogue06]

Ironically, well after networks like Fox had reported that Wright had a warrant out for his arrest on the charge of attempted aggravated robbery after he allegedly held a woman at gunpoint while choking her in an attempt to take $820 from her in 2019, you had former Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill on MSNBC's Morning Joe program angrily proclaiming that Wright hadn't been accused of any serious crimes and literally said it wasn't like he was "an armed robber."

Gotta wonder what she calls holding up someone with a gun and stealing $820.

She also repeated the dubious claim that Wright was unaware of the warrant because he supposedly never received notice of a hearing. While I can't speak for Minneapolis, Minnesota EVERY jurisdiction that I'm familiar with informs you of your trial date when you are being released.

[Cow Poke]

Our police are obviously different to yours because they do work in different conditions. If a person is able to get out of their vehicle and go-sit in the police car then that is what happens. The cop approaches the vehicle, greets the driver, asks the driver to turn the engine off, briefly explains why s/he needed to stop the vehicle and then asks driver to 'come sit in the police car'. As the driver gets out the cop can then ask the driver to bring their keys with them for security.

That was very common back in my day - "we can talk in my car" - which, of course, necessitated a coded messaging system if dispatch needed to advise that the person was a wanted and/or dangerous person. Mind you - back then (mid 70's) we didn't have instant communication and confirmation of warrants and such. But there was still a sense of respect for police that the "bad actor" was extremely rare.

Where a driver refuses or drives off (it happens) the police just follow, and if the escapee drives dangerously the police will discontinue the chase.
That can sound a bit weak, but we've got 65 million people living in a land about half the size of Texas, and our cctv coverage is many many more times more intensive than anything you've got. Where a 'Crime Pool car with cloned plates' has got away the car's details go in to the computer for instant recall.

I think MOST police departments in the US are rethinking (or already have) the standards for pursuit --- if it's a broken tail-light, or the driver neglected to use proper turn signals, is that REALLY worth a high speed chase, crashed vehicles, and possibly lost lives?

Our cops have made mistakes, shot innocents, been caught in their own scams, etc.,......... but our training and counselling is very high quality, and I do wonder whether this police officer has been given in depth training on instant reactions with 'tazer or pistol', and I read a post which explains that her bail is set at $100,000........

Sometimes, and what I think may be the case here, a police officer is simply not cut out to be a police officer due to insecurity issues, fear, etc --- and they can fake it for a long time until the situation gets out of control.

I had a partner once who was always a "tough guy" cop, but one night we had to hunt down an escaped convict, and there was a suspicion that this escapee was hiding in the attic of a home under construction. My partner got there first, and motioned for ME to go up the stairs to check the attic. I could see the FEAR in his eyes, as he realized this was one of the most undesirable 'searches' you can imagine --- where your head is the first thing that appears to the victim, and HE knows where you're going to come in, and YOU don't have a clue which of the 360degrees he may be hiding in.

I don't pray, CP, but my thoughts go out to both her and the family of the young man shot by accident.

I'm a wee bit cynical on that -- I think he was pretty well destined to get in trouble with the law from his own bad choices, but - no - I wouldn't wish that on him.