|
|
It is currently Sat May 11, 2024 9:21 am
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
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
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 14 posts ] |
|
BCA: Suspect Shooting In St. Cloud Was Accidental
Author |
Message |
princewally
|
Post subject: BCA: Suspect Shooting In St. Cloud Was Accidental Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:42 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:02 am Posts: 1684 Location: St Louis Park
|
http://wcco.com/local/suspect.shooting. ... 61689.html
Quote: The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension says the shooting of a man in St. Cloud during a drug investigation was accidental.
The BCA says officers of the Central Minnesota Drug and Gang Task Force were trying to make an arrest at the McStop restaurant on Friday when the commander's weapon discharged unintentionally.
Lt. David McLaughlin of the Stearns County sheriff's office is on paid administrative leave, which is standard procedure. The weapon went off when the suspects were placed on the ground, according to the BCA.
Stearns County Sheriff John Sanner says the weapon went off during a scuffle between the suspects and police.
A 42-year-old man was shot. He was treated at a hospital and is now in jail. A 30-year-old woman arrested with him also is in jail.
_________________ Of the people, By the People, For the People. The government exists to serve us, not the reverse.
-------------------- Next MN carry permit class: TBD.
Permit to Carry MN --------------------
jason <at> metrodefense <dot> com
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Rothman
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:11 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am Posts: 6767 Location: Twin Cities
|
|
|
|
|
DeanC
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:25 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am Posts: 5270 Location: Minneapolis
|
I wonder if it looked like this:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XnCnqOQSQ8E&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XnCnqOQSQ8E&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
_________________ I am defending myself... in favor of that!
|
|
|
|
|
Traveler
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 2:48 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:46 pm Posts: 845 Location: Saint Paul
|
I happened to read this article along with another article in the morning paper. In the other article a St. Paul K9 officer let his dog run free and it ended up biting a young man, causing him to receive 16 stitches to close up the wounds. http://www.twincities.com/ci_11936545?nclick_check=1
It is obvious to me that the St. Cloud incident is strongly linked to the above. In both cases a police officer allowed something in his charge to run wild and in the process injure a citizen. I am sure that the esteemed Lt. McLaughlin allowed his belt musket to run without a leash, taking it out of his control.
Oh, lest I forget, in the South St. Paul incident, the officer conducted himself in a very professional manner:
Quote: Fitzgerald said she's angry that Rinehart, who was in uniform, told her son to walk home by himself and that he would meet him at his house. Rinehart told her he was trying to reach his commander, Fitzgerald said.
When he pulled up in his squad car, Rinehart said, "I'm so sorry this happened," according to Fitzgerald.
She asked him what happened, and Rinehart said Mitch must have spooked his dog. Rinehart also asked what he and his friend had been doing by the water tower. Fitzgerald told Rinehart her son and his friend weren't doing anything wrong. Quote: Fitzgerald said she asked Rinehart to call an ambulance.
"He said it would cost too much money," Fitzgerald said. "I said, 'It doesn't really matter and I have insurance.' He said it was a little puncture wound and I should go wash it off with cold water."
Fitzgerald said she did as Rinehart suggested, but she could tell the wounds were more serious than a puncture wound. She said she asked Rinehart again — this time in the presence of a South St. Paul police officer — about calling an ambulance, and he repeated that it would be expensive.
At that point, Fitzgerald got Mitch into her car and drove him to the emergency room at Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota, she said.
St. Cloud's and St. Paul's finest indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
peckerhead
|
Post subject: Re: BCA: Suspect Shooting In St. Cloud Was Accidental Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 2:38 am |
|
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 3:11 am Posts: 69 Location: In limbo....
|
princewally wrote: http://wcco.com/local/suspect.shooting.accidental.2.961689.html Quote: The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension says the shooting of a man in St. Cloud during a drug investigation was accidental.
The BCA says officers of the Central Minnesota Drug and Gang Task Force were trying to make an arrest at the McStop restaurant on Friday when the commander's weapon discharged unintentionally.
Lt. David McLaughlin of the Stearns County sheriff's office is on paid administrative leave, which is standard procedure. The weapon went off when the suspects were placed on the ground, according to the BCA.
Stearns County Sheriff John Sanner says the weapon went off during a scuffle between the suspects and police.
A 42-year-old man was shot. He was treated at a hospital and is now in jail. A 30-year-old woman arrested with him also is in jail.
It just went off!
|
|
|
|
|
peckerhead
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:37 am |
|
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 3:11 am Posts: 69 Location: In limbo....
|
Traveler wrote: I happened to read this article along with another article in the morning paper. In the other article a St. Paul K9 officer let his dog run free and it ended up biting a young man, causing him to receive 16 stitches to close up the wounds. http://www.twincities.com/ci_11936545?nclick_check=1It is obvious to me that the St. Cloud incident is strongly linked to the above. In both cases a police officer allowed something in his charge to run wild and in the process injure a citizen. I am sure that the esteemed Lt. McLaughlin allowed his belt musket to run without a leash, taking it out of his control. Oh, lest I forget, in the South St. Paul incident, the officer conducted himself in a very professional manner: Quote: Fitzgerald said she's angry that Rinehart, who was in uniform, told her son to walk home by himself and that he would meet him at his house. Rinehart told her he was trying to reach his commander, Fitzgerald said.
When he pulled up in his squad car, Rinehart said, "I'm so sorry this happened," according to Fitzgerald.
She asked him what happened, and Rinehart said Mitch must have spooked his dog. Rinehart also asked what he and his friend had been doing by the water tower. Fitzgerald told Rinehart her son and his friend weren't doing anything wrong. Quote: Fitzgerald said she asked Rinehart to call an ambulance.
"He said it would cost too much money," Fitzgerald said. "I said, 'It doesn't really matter and I have insurance.' He said it was a little puncture wound and I should go wash it off with cold water."
Fitzgerald said she did as Rinehart suggested, but she could tell the wounds were more serious than a puncture wound. She said she asked Rinehart again — this time in the presence of a South St. Paul police officer — about calling an ambulance, and he repeated that it would be expensive.
At that point, Fitzgerald got Mitch into her car and drove him to the emergency room at Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota, she said. St. Cloud's and St. Paul's finest indeed.
One question: could one of us have legally shot that goddamn dog?
|
|
|
|
|
realtor_packing_heat
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:55 pm |
|
Senior Member |
|
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:32 pm Posts: 180 Location: St. Paul
|
Quote: One question: could one of us have legally shot that goddamn dog?
That is a good question. I come across a stray dog about once a week and have often considered what I would do.
The working hypothesis for now is I am not going to shoot unless it bites.
Can't wait to hear what the others here think
|
|
|
|
|
mnmike59
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 1:41 pm |
|
Senior Member |
|
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:49 pm Posts: 105
|
realtor_packing_heat wrote: Quote: One question: could one of us have legally shot that goddamn dog? That is a good question. I come across a stray dog about once a week and have often considered what I would do. The working hypothesis for now is I am not going to shoot unless it bites. Can't wait to hear what the others here think
I had a large cross breed of some sort come after me and my golden ( Charging attack) during a walk in a neighborhood I had not been through before.
Having worked with many dogs in the past for hunt training and basic obedience my first instinct was to face the charging dog square and at the top of my lungs yell "NO" with my hands out front. To my amazement the dog stopped and the owner come running from his house at the same time. It worked. I don't know what the dog might have done if the owner didn't come out at that moment. But I know it stopped the initial attack of that dog.
The only thing I can attribute that to is most all dogs know the command "NO"
|
|
|
|
|
Dee
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 3:07 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:39 pm Posts: 533 Location: Mankato Area
|
On the other hand, the kid is really lucky that he didn't get really chewed up. With no handler to control the dog, it could have been worse. I realize that Police dogs have some level of training, but they are trained to be aggressive.
If it was my kid and I was along, I would do anything to stop the attack whether it was a dog or a human perpetrator
Last edited by Dee on Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
tman065
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:48 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:19 am Posts: 810 Location: Northern MN
|
609.596 KILLING OR HARMING PUBLIC SAFETY DOG.
Quote: Subdivision 1.Felony.It is a felony for any person to intentionally and without justification cause the death of a police dog, a search and rescue dog, or an arson dog when the dog is involved in law enforcement, fire, or correctional investigation or apprehension, search and rescue duties, or the dog is in the custody of or under the control of a peace officer, a trained handler, or an employee of a correctional facility. A person convicted under this subdivision may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than two years or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both. In lieu of a fine, the court may order the defendant to pay restitution to the owner to replace the police dog, search and rescue dog, or arson dog, in an amount not to exceed $5,000.
Subd. 2.Gross misdemeanor.It is a gross misdemeanor for any person to intentionally and without justification cause substantial or great bodily harm to a police dog, search and rescue dog, or an arson dog when the dog is involved in law enforcement, fire, or correctional investigation or apprehension, search and rescue duties, or the dog is in the custody of or under the control of a peace officer, a trained handler, or an employee of a correctional facility.
Subd. 3.Definitions.As used in this section:
(1) "arson dog" means a dog that has been certified as an arson dog by a state fire or police agency or by an independent testing laboratory;
(2) "correctional facility" has the meaning given in section 241.021, subdivision 1, paragraph (f);
(3) "peace officer" has the meaning given in section 626.84, subdivision 1, paragraph (c); and
(4) "search and rescue dog" means a dog that is trained to locate lost or missing persons, victims of natural or other disasters, and human bodies.
History: 1987 c 167 s 1; 1996 c 408 art 3 s 35; 1999 c 77 s 1; 2001 c 7 s 87
I've hi-lighted the part your attorney will have to argue for you. good luck!
_________________ Proud, Service Oriented, Rural LEO, or "BADGED COWBOY" Certified MN Carry Permit Instructor
|
|
|
|
|
Dee
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:58 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:39 pm Posts: 533 Location: Mankato Area
|
If it would stop my kid from being mauled, I'd stop the attack and worry about the consequences later.
It's not that I would want to shoot a Police dog or any dog for that matter. It's just that if I had to choose between my kid and a dog attacking her, there would be no contest.
|
|
|
|
|
Sietch
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:40 pm |
|
Senior Member |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:05 pm Posts: 199 Location: Twin Cities, MN
|
It's like this.
The law goes pretty much the same for police people and dogs alike. In the course of their lawful duties, they are untouchable. Outside that, they have no more protection than anyone else.
So, if an off-duty officer chases down another motorist on the freeway and threatens their life, outside the capacity of a peace officer, and the motorist shoots the guy, to death, in defense of his life, then the motorist acted within the law.
Of course, I can think of a certain incident where things curiously haven't worked out that way.
_________________ "My name is Shosanna Dreyfus. This is the face of Jewish vengeance."
|
|
|
|
|
mrokern
|
Post subject: Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:53 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm Posts: 2264 Location: Eden Prairie
|
Sietch wrote: It's like this.
The law goes pretty much the same for police people and dogs alike. In the course of their lawful duties, they are untouchable. Outside that, they have no more protection than anyone else.
So, if an off-duty officer chases down another motorist on the freeway and threatens their life, outside the capacity of a peace officer, and the motorist shoots the guy, to death, in defense of his life, then the motorist acted within the law.
Of course, I can think of a certain incident where things curiously haven't worked out that way.
Come on, no cop would ever act that wa....oh yeah. Oopsie.
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Rothman
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:20 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am Posts: 6767 Location: Twin Cities
|
A couple more bits need to be highlighted. An aggressive, off-leash, unsupervised dog is fair game regardless of its day job.
Quote: Subdivision 1.Felony.It is a felony for any person to intentionally and without justification cause the death of a police dog, a search and rescue dog, or an arson dog when the dog is involved in law enforcement, fire, or correctional investigation or apprehension, search and rescue duties, or the dog is in the custody of or under the control of a peace officer, a trained handler, or an employee of a correctional facility. A person convicted under this subdivision may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than two years or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both. In lieu of a fine, the court may order the defendant to pay restitution to the owner to replace the police dog, search and rescue dog, or arson dog, in an amount not to exceed $5,000.
Subd. 2.Gross misdemeanor.It is a gross misdemeanor for any person to intentionally and without justification cause substantial or great bodily harm to a police dog, search and rescue dog, or an arson dog when the dog is involved in law enforcement, fire, or correctional investigation or apprehension, search and rescue duties, or the dog is in the custody of or under the control of a peace officer, a trained handler, or an employee of a correctional facility.
Subd. 3.Definitions.As used in this section:
(1) "arson dog" means a dog that has been certified as an arson dog by a state fire or police agency or by an independent testing laboratory;
(2) "correctional facility" has the meaning given in section 241.021, subdivision 1, paragraph (f);
(3) "peace officer" has the meaning given in section 626.84, subdivision 1, paragraph (c); and
(4) "search and rescue dog" means a dog that is trained to locate lost or missing persons, victims of natural or other disasters, and human bodies.
History: 1987 c 167 s 1; 1996 c 408 art 3 s 35; 1999 c 77 s 1; 2001 c 7 s 87
I've hi-lighted the part your attorney will have to argue for you. good luck! [/quote]
_________________ * NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 14 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
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 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
|
|
|