- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
In 2020, Walz signed a law allowing an officer to protect themselves against vehicles
Posted on 1/11/26 at 10:46 am
Posted on 1/11/26 at 10:46 am
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. Ironic! Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed a law in 2020 that if a vehicle accelerates towards a police officer, the officer does not have to wait until impact, they can act based on intent and proximity.
10
Posted on 1/11/26 at 10:47 am to Placekicker
Oops.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 10:48 am to Godfather1
quote:
Oops.
Hahahahahaha, yep! But, he’s changed how he FEELS about it, so the law no matter counts.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 10:49 am to Placekicker
quote:
‘they can act based on intent’
What do you personally believe the ‘intent’ of the driver was in this situation?
Posted on 1/11/26 at 10:49 am to Placekicker
Doesn’t matter, certain posters will continue to ask what law Good broke. They’re taking willful ignorance to the extreme.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 10:50 am to SuperSaint
quote:
What do you personally believe the ‘intent’ of the driver was in this situation?
I believe she was going to run him down and kill him.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 10:51 am to PsychTiger
quote:neither side is running a monopoly on this here
They’re taking willful ignorance to the extreme.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 10:52 am to Placekicker
That was then man
Posted on 1/11/26 at 10:53 am to PsychTiger
quote:
Doesn’t matter, certain posters will continue to ask what law Good broke. They’re taking willful ignorance to the extreme.
Correct. The mental gymnastics they will undertake to make it fit their narrative is astounding…
Posted on 1/11/26 at 10:55 am to Strannix
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.
I believe she was going to run him down and kill him.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 10:57 am to SuperSaint
Well, he had already been hit by a car once, soooo…
Posted on 1/11/26 at 10:57 am to SuperSaint
quote:
What do you personally believe the ‘intent’ of the driver was in this situation?
I think she wanted to hire him to walk her dog.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 10:59 am to Strannix
quote:
believe she was going to run him down and kill him.
And just what evidence are you basing that fascist interpretation on? I mean, aside from the video clearly showing her trying to run him down and kill him. And the eyewitnesses. And her prior unhinged actions. Aside from all that . . .
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:02 am to Placekicker
Minn. Stat. § 609.066.
Under Minnesota law and POST guidance, a vehicle can constitute deadly force when used against an officer. Crucially, an officer is not required to wait until impact to defend themselves. The legal standard is based on intent, proximity, and the officer’s reasonable perception of imminent harm, not whether the officer is already pinned or run over.
In other words, once a driver accelerates toward or strikes an officer while attempting to flee, the threat is legally established. The law does not require officers to assume the driver will brake, turn away, or limit acceleration. It evaluates whether a reasonable officer would perceive an imminent risk of death or great bodily harm in that moment.
Under Minnesota law and POST guidance, a vehicle can constitute deadly force when used against an officer. Crucially, an officer is not required to wait until impact to defend themselves. The legal standard is based on intent, proximity, and the officer’s reasonable perception of imminent harm, not whether the officer is already pinned or run over.
In other words, once a driver accelerates toward or strikes an officer while attempting to flee, the threat is legally established. The law does not require officers to assume the driver will brake, turn away, or limit acceleration. It evaluates whether a reasonable officer would perceive an imminent risk of death or great bodily harm in that moment.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:06 am to Placekicker
Derek Chavin says remember me
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:07 am to SuperSaint
No. You give us the shite for brains reasons.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:08 am to Placekicker
That's not accurate, at all.
Here is a link to the actual law cited in that video:
Minnesota statute 609.066
Here is a link to the actual law cited in that video:
Minnesota statute 609.066
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:18 am to Placekicker
Nice find by doreen linder.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:28 am to HubbaBubba
quote:
That's not accurate, at all.
Here is a link to the actual law cited in that video:
It is probably accurate in how the law is interpreted, but the issue is that the Xweet in the OP — and another thread here just like it with the same post — is that people are legitimately believing that is the actual language of the law. Even in this thread that appears to be the case. It is an intentional misrepresentation.
This post was edited on 1/11/26 at 11:29 am
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:29 am to HubbaBubba
§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).
Subd
It reads EXACTLY as stated in the op and like another has posted.
Just because you FEEL differently about it doesn’t change the facts that it exists and the office acted in accordance with the law.
(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).
Subd
It reads EXACTLY as stated in the op and like another has posted.
Just because you FEEL differently about it doesn’t change the facts that it exists and the office acted in accordance with the law.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News