Good on the chief for backing the officer after getting all the facts and evidence gathered. The Main Stain media has been pushing their anti-police narratives with detrimental consequences. He simply didn't allow that to happen, and effectively put a stop to it.
What happened to officers like Derek Chauvin is wrong, and a good police leader puts the brakes on the slander before history can repeat itself.
Sadly, this isn't anything new. Not criminal suspects running from police, not criminal suspects assaulting police, not criminal suspects getting shot by police, not bystanders lying about what happened to the media, and certainly not the media reporting without doing any fact checking or questioning the alleged witness. The sad part is that while members of the public who don't understand qualified immunity cry and whine about it, they're absolutely fine with the media being able to report lies or to report stories without doing any fact-checking simply because they can get clicks, likes and purchases of their products. There needs to be some accountability. The people who purposely tell these lies to the media in the hopes of inflaming the public against the police need to be held responsible and need to be charged. The media who reports without fact checking knowing what kind of damage a lie like this can do also needs to be held accountable. The officer, the police chief, the police department, the city, county or state needs to be able to sue these media Outlets for reporting false information prior to doing any type of fact-checking or waiting for the facts to come out.
I mean, we all know that even if we catch someone committing a crime red-handed or they are caught on video committing the crime that we have to say "the suspect" or the "alleged" Criminal because God forbid we call a criminal who's caught on video or caught red-handed, a criminal. In some cases we can't even use the word suspect and we have to use the word subject and yet the media feels totally free and unrestrained by reporting from some Rando that they ran into on the street because his story seemed like it might get a lot of attention in their media. This has to stop. The hands up, don't shoot b******* that started riots that went on for months and was completely proven to be false started the entire thing and now every turd that sees a media truck show up wants to lie and get their face on TV and lie about what they claim they saw. Every media Source wants the first chance at inflaming the public by reporting on something that they don't have any facts to support. It's time for it to stop.
Well, if you shoot a police officer, expect to get shot in return. If you point a gun - or anything that an officer might perceive to be a gun - in a threatening or menacing manner, expect to get shot. As far as this case goes, it will be interesting to see what the body camera shows. The image capture clearly shows the suspect pointing the gun at the suspect, and I'll assume this is when he gets shot. Without the video, it's hard to determine when the officers returned fire. If the suspect shot and then turned and ran before officers were able to return fire, then yes, it would look like a fleeing suspect had been shot in the back.
This is the perceptual lag and should be expected. Either way, it would appear to be a good shoot.
However, before I publicly criticize a witness or the media, I would need to understand this dynamic. A witness, who maybe was not watching the chase but whose attention was first captured by the sound of gunfire, turns to look at the source and sees a suspect running and officers shooting him in the back. They may not have seen the suspect shoot the officer and assumed the gunfire was all from the police. Again, either way, responsible media members would ensure they waited until speaking with the police PIO to get the initial statement from them before posting anything publicly about what a witness reported seeing. If they knew the officer had been shot and didn't report that, I would call that "lying by omission," and I would expect any journalist to make that type of negligent claim to be fired and sued for libel.
My point in this extended response is that it is essential to get as many facts out publicly as quickly as possible without compromising the integrity of the investigation. An inflammatory witness statement can do a tremendous amount of damage in a very short period, so it is imperative to "get out in front of it" as much as possible. The media will always want more than you are prepared to give in the first few hours of these incidents, but if you don't provide them with anything, they will run with what they have. That is their job, and they will do it regardless. A failure to meet with the media in a reasonable amount of time could induce an avoidable communication error. It's a delicate and complex thing to balance. It usually leaves both the police administration and media frustrated with one another. Still, by protecting the integrity of the case and making sure the truth, the unbiased truth, is learned, friction will always be present. A proper investigation can't be rushed, nor should it be, to meet the demands of an impatient media.
I'm glad the officer was not seriously injured and will live to work another day!
“Stand up for your officers when they’re right, stand beside them when they’re wrong and prosecute them when they’re criminals”
Yes, courageous police leadership is the path forward. Great job Chief Zetterholm on facing the cowards promoting a false narrative.
Good on the chief for backing the officer after getting all the facts and evidence gathered. The Main Stain media has been pushing their anti-police narratives with detrimental consequences. He simply didn't allow that to happen, and effectively put a stop to it.
What happened to officers like Derek Chauvin is wrong, and a good police leader puts the brakes on the slander before history can repeat itself.
Sadly, this isn't anything new. Not criminal suspects running from police, not criminal suspects assaulting police, not criminal suspects getting shot by police, not bystanders lying about what happened to the media, and certainly not the media reporting without doing any fact checking or questioning the alleged witness. The sad part is that while members of the public who don't understand qualified immunity cry and whine about it, they're absolutely fine with the media being able to report lies or to report stories without doing any fact-checking simply because they can get clicks, likes and purchases of their products. There needs to be some accountability. The people who purposely tell these lies to the media in the hopes of inflaming the public against the police need to be held responsible and need to be charged. The media who reports without fact checking knowing what kind of damage a lie like this can do also needs to be held accountable. The officer, the police chief, the police department, the city, county or state needs to be able to sue these media Outlets for reporting false information prior to doing any type of fact-checking or waiting for the facts to come out.
I mean, we all know that even if we catch someone committing a crime red-handed or they are caught on video committing the crime that we have to say "the suspect" or the "alleged" Criminal because God forbid we call a criminal who's caught on video or caught red-handed, a criminal. In some cases we can't even use the word suspect and we have to use the word subject and yet the media feels totally free and unrestrained by reporting from some Rando that they ran into on the street because his story seemed like it might get a lot of attention in their media. This has to stop. The hands up, don't shoot b******* that started riots that went on for months and was completely proven to be false started the entire thing and now every turd that sees a media truck show up wants to lie and get their face on TV and lie about what they claim they saw. Every media Source wants the first chance at inflaming the public by reporting on something that they don't have any facts to support. It's time for it to stop.
Well, if you shoot a police officer, expect to get shot in return. If you point a gun - or anything that an officer might perceive to be a gun - in a threatening or menacing manner, expect to get shot. As far as this case goes, it will be interesting to see what the body camera shows. The image capture clearly shows the suspect pointing the gun at the suspect, and I'll assume this is when he gets shot. Without the video, it's hard to determine when the officers returned fire. If the suspect shot and then turned and ran before officers were able to return fire, then yes, it would look like a fleeing suspect had been shot in the back.
This is the perceptual lag and should be expected. Either way, it would appear to be a good shoot.
However, before I publicly criticize a witness or the media, I would need to understand this dynamic. A witness, who maybe was not watching the chase but whose attention was first captured by the sound of gunfire, turns to look at the source and sees a suspect running and officers shooting him in the back. They may not have seen the suspect shoot the officer and assumed the gunfire was all from the police. Again, either way, responsible media members would ensure they waited until speaking with the police PIO to get the initial statement from them before posting anything publicly about what a witness reported seeing. If they knew the officer had been shot and didn't report that, I would call that "lying by omission," and I would expect any journalist to make that type of negligent claim to be fired and sued for libel.
My point in this extended response is that it is essential to get as many facts out publicly as quickly as possible without compromising the integrity of the investigation. An inflammatory witness statement can do a tremendous amount of damage in a very short period, so it is imperative to "get out in front of it" as much as possible. The media will always want more than you are prepared to give in the first few hours of these incidents, but if you don't provide them with anything, they will run with what they have. That is their job, and they will do it regardless. A failure to meet with the media in a reasonable amount of time could induce an avoidable communication error. It's a delicate and complex thing to balance. It usually leaves both the police administration and media frustrated with one another. Still, by protecting the integrity of the case and making sure the truth, the unbiased truth, is learned, friction will always be present. A proper investigation can't be rushed, nor should it be, to meet the demands of an impatient media.
I'm glad the officer was not seriously injured and will live to work another day!