The rules are the same, guys.

[642rUS]

A quote to remember. Thanks, Chief.

Police shot and killed a man Thursday morning (8-28-2014) on St. Paul’s West Side in a confrontation that one witness said involved the suspect throwing rocks, punching an officer and charging at the cops.

The shooting occurred about 6:20 a.m. near Plato Boulevard and Wabasha Street, across the Mississippi River from downtown.

Police Chief Tom Smith, explaining Thursday afternoon why the officer shot the man whose weapons were rocks, said, “You don’t always have to have a firearm or knife to hurt somebody.”

http://www.startribune.com/local/273013851.html

​And, apparently, the severity of the potential "hurt" need not be "great bodily harm." ​

It used to be (1950-90) that if an unarmed man charged at a cop, he got punched or wacked with a billy club.

[xd ED]

A quote to remember. Thanks, Chief.

Police shot and killed a man Thursday morning (8-28-2014) on St. Paul’s West Side in a confrontation that one witness said involved the suspect throwing rocks, punching an officer and charging at the cops.

The shooting occurred about 6:20 a.m. near Plato Boulevard and Wabasha Street, across the Mississippi River from downtown.

Police Chief Tom Smith, explaining Thursday afternoon why the officer shot the man whose weapons were rocks, said, “You don’t always have to have a firearm or knife to hurt somebody.”

http://www.startribune.com/local/273013851.html

​And, apparently, the severity of the potential "hurt" need not be "great bodily harm." ​

It used to be (1950-90) that if an unarmed man charged at a cop, he got punched or wacked with a billy club.

I think a good rule would be:
Don't bring a rock to a gunfight.

I take it you would estimate that an enraged adult male, wielding a rock described as baseball sized, would not be capable of visiting great bodily harm upon you?
This same guy had just taken a pipe to the windows of an occupied vehicle.

Maybe the cops should have shot the rock out of his hand, or aimed for his leg.

[jgalt]

I interpreted 642rUS's post as a comment solely on the Chiefs use of the word "hurt". He makes is sound like just because a rock could have "hurt" his officer, that officer had the legal right to shoot.

Presumably the Chief knows the use of force laws in MN, but the quote by itself doesn't demonstrate that (not that he was trying to demonstrate anything...).

[xd ED]

I interpreted 642rUS's post as a comment solely on the Chiefs use of the word "hurt". He makes is sound like just because a rock could have "hurt" his officer, that officer had the legal right to shoot.

Presumably the Chief knows the use of force laws in MN, but the quote by itself doesn't demonstrate that (not that he was trying to demonstrate anything...).

Good food for thought.

I've never been over impressed with this(or now that I think about it, any recent) SPPD CoP
Perhaps he's trying a bit too hard to defend his guys, something I view as unneccesary in this case.