Seems there are witnesses in the vehicle - other then the shooters wife...



Considering he likely hasn't made his "official" statement yet... curious how the chief can state - "Hey, it's not your fault, you're doing your job..." I didn't think being the first to pull your gun in a road rage incident was part of the job description...

Mostly-

....which may or may not apply to this case: the easiest obnoxious driver situation to deal with is when he's in front of you -- say, he's slamming on his brakes to annoy you in slowish-moving traffic. Just pull over or turn off; life's too short, you're not going to correct his idiocy, and handling an accident will take a lot longer than whatever delay that causes. If he pulls over and/or turns around to continue the encounter, time to call 911.

More annoying, and harder to handle: the guy who tailgates you, say, on the highway, and then pulls around in front of you and slows down, as though to say, "You've slowed me down; now I'm going to slow you down." Idiot. (Happened to me, twice, in umpty-umph years of driving.)

Pull over, slowly, to the side of the road; call 911. At that point (I had to skip the 911 calls; the latest time this happened was years ago, before I had a cell phone), he'll either give up and drive on (which is what happened both times to me) or take that as a challenge to get out of the car and come over to, err, "settle things man to man."

Drive on -- don't race away; an idiot can catch you -- and stay on the phone with 911.

Minor points: the horn is to alert somebody to your presence, or their lack of paying attention; it's not to express your irritation with their lack of manners, or your belief that their parents only met briefly in an alley, during a financial transaction.

If you're going to wave goodbye to somebody, do remember to use all five fingers.

It would depend on the situation. If this is as the arrested guy's father described, that was totally inappropriate -- but let's keep in mind that we haven't heard all of the story. I could, if anybody would like, construct a hypothetical where the fellow who ended up getting shot would have been right to take his gun out -- but I'm not saying that that was -- or wasn't -- the case here.

All in all, I think it's good leadership, by and large, for a police chief to be initially supportive of an officer involved in a shooting (remember how badly Olson in Minneapolis hanging his officers out to dry was for morale), as long as that support doesn't in any way lead to messing with the investigation.

Remember: this incident isn't going to be investigated by the officer's own department -- it'll be the local cops, and I'm not going to start shouting "Blue wall of silence!" unless and until there's some reason to think that's going on. (Initial quotes from the Coon Rapids deputy chief sound very professional and uncoveruplike.)

I know that I've become a much more curtious and patient driver since getting my permit (maybe it's just wisdom of age). I don't know that I would ever pull over in the case of road rage nor pull next to the other party - movement is my friend - now I may non-agressively alter my route.

Mostly-

I'll be following this closely to see what develops. It appears to me, if the story is anywhere near correct, both drivers made stupid mistakes.

I know when your temper is "up" it's hard to turn away, slow down or drive away but you must.

I think the shooter and the cop are both having second thoughts this morning about how they behaved.

Surprises me that a family of four (two little ones), didn't have a cell phone in the Buick. One of the first things I was told in my permit class was to get a cell phone.. Not very expensive now days. First sign of trouble in the car (with those kids there) mom should have been punching 911, then pull into the gas station. Someones either lieing here or is an idiot (or both). Someone shouldn't have a permit, or someone shouldn't be a cop (or both). Both have POOR judgement IMHO. Only time will tell the whole story..
Be safe.

Thread drift: my driving has mellowed with years, after having a child, and after getting my permit. It only makes sense [to me now as I've matured] to simply avoid trouble.


But, as mostly said, I'd have a real lot of trouble pulling over as an avoidance tactic. When I was about 12-13, I remember a case where dad was driving, and it was the whole family of four. I don't think there was much/any aggressive behavior on my dads part other than moving over into tight quarters in fast traffic. But apparently when moving over he cut a guy off; I'm pretty certain it was a faux pas and not anything intentional.

Next thing we know, the guy zips around us, crowds us to the edge, blocks the way to the front. Then he hops out, runs over to our car, and starts punching the driver window. I don't recall why we weren't just backing up and driving away at that point, but my guess is fear and the speed of the event were in play.

Regardless, I feel to this day that stopping, where the other party can get at me quickly while I try to figure out how to maneuver my vehicle is a bad option.

Sorry; I guess I wasn't clear -- I was talking about (or trying to talk about) situations where simply driving away wasn't practical, say if you're stuck in traffic, or if you're on a highway and he speeds up or slows down to stay with you.

I would venture to say that since the "headlines" are over it is very likely we will never know the outcome. I say this because the media is already in search of new "headlines" for the morning news. Also the police department is protecting the identity of their undercover officer now (as they should & this indicates he is valuable in this capacity) so they are not going to want his identity compromised in court if it is not necessary.

If I had to guess, very little if anything else will surface regarding this incident and it will be settled very quietly, maybe in maybe out of court, with little or no publicity.

As to blame, I prefer to leave this to those trained to make this determination after they do their investigation. I wasn't there, I pay little attention to what the media tries to lead people to believe. I just ask that everyone involved gets a fair investigation and that, should I need it, I get the same should my time come.

Just one old guys opinion!

DonT

Couple of follow-up thoughts regarding what DonT just said:

1.) If you're an undercover cop and see a crime that doesn't require immediate action on your part to save others, is it typical for the undercover cop to inject himself into the situation and stop the crime, thereby blowing his cover, or are such professionals taught to instead call for marked back-up and then possibly just keep the alleged criminal in view until that back-up arrives?

2.) I agree that we won't be hearing many details about the cop. I don't agree that the civilian's role in this will be so quickly swept under the rug. This is very close to the exact type of event that the anti's all over the country have been waiting for as on its surface--and possibly with a little selective disclosure of certain "confidential" facts but not others--it appears to support the "wild west" predictions we so often hear. At least one person will be made an example of by this event, and even a non-betting man can see where the majority will try to place most of the blame. A wake is on its way, and I'm concerned that a ripple effect will long be felt.

3.) Would the mods kindly consider whether this entire topic should be moved to strategy? I don't think we can do anyone involved in the event any good with our public speculation and opinions.

Thanks,

Nowhere close to enough information in this article to make any decisions on who's right or wrong.

There are permit holders with attitude problems (wish this wasn't so, but to believe otherwise is just ignorance) and there are cops with attitude problems. Sounds like it may have been the mix of both in this situation that resulted in shots fired.

Blame lies with both parties. Makes for uninteresting news. I agree this will go away quietly without any publicity.

Why do the initial reports use the generic "he had a permit", wouldn't the anti-gunners want to use their key phrase of "he had a conceal and carry permit"? Seems weird, the terms they use and at what times. Of course the laziness of the reporter not clarifying "permit to carry".

I wonder if the officer was trying to say "I'm a cop"... with his gun. Seriously, I could see it happening. "See, I'm a cop, why would I have this gun if I wasn't?" It's possible if he was undercover, he didn't have a car with lights and was trying to pull over the driver... with his gun.

It's a drag that somebody got hurt, but in the war of soundbites, even after this incident, light rail transit has still killed more people that permit holders in Minnesota.

This is very unfortunate for all parties involved, and like most unfortunate events, there is generally no single mistake or bad decision that led to the outcome.

Like a plane crash, there is usually a chain of bad decisions (often, all small ones) that only when all added together add up to tragedy.

I predict that this will be the case here.

Well, if there was an altercation, and one car pulls over, why should the other stop? Just drive on. Anything else sounds like escalation.

Now, since no one was in danger till guns were drawn, why would they be drawn at all? Some of the blame has to lay on whoever drew first. The officer never said "I got my gun out because I was attempting to effect an arrest", so as said above, why blow one's cover? Not very professional, but not damning either.