Summary: Minnesota Statutes § 609.066

 

Summary: Minnesota Statutes § 609.066 allows a peace officer to discharge their firearm into (or at) a moving car if the officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances known or perceived at the time, without the benefit of hindsight, that such deadly force is necessary to protect themselves or another person from imminent death or great bodily harm.

The statute explicitly defines the intentional discharge of a firearm “at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be” as constituting deadly force (Subdivision 1), and this applies regardless of whether the vehicle is moving. Justification under Subdivision 2 requires the threat to be specifically articulable, reasonably likely to occur without intervention, and of such immediacy that it must be addressed with deadly force. For example, this includes situations where a moving vehicle is being used as a weapon to run over an officer or others, or where occupants are actively threatening deadly harm.

So, let’s cut the euphemisms and the leftist-tainted bullshit.

Minnesota has a damn statute, Minnesota Statutes § 609.066, signed into law by the esteemed theologian-in-chief, Tim Walz, back in 2020. It states that if a driver accelerates toward an officer standing in front of a vehicle and creates an immediate, life-threatening danger, the officer does not have to wait until they are mashed under the tires to act. That is the threshold. It is written. It is real. It exists.

Now what will the blind, blue-blooded members of the leftist mob say about that?

Every time a cop did anything you didn’t like, you lost your minds and started citing “nuance.” So, is the statute now “bad context”? Is intent now unknowable? Is the written rulebook just a suggestion because it doesn’t keep your emotional comfort blanket nice and warm?

Was the death of Renee Good a tragedy? Fuck yes. A real human life ended. No argument. None.

But tragedy does not turn statutes into haiku. Reality does not take a time-out because you are upset on X or TikTok. A two-ton machine scraping pavement toward a human body is a deadly threat whether you like the outcome or not. That is not “nuance.” That is physics. Actual physics, not your blue-fogged interpretation.

So let me ask you, straight up:

Do we follow the law only when it flatters our politics?

Do officers have to obey statutes you wrote, but only until someone on camera looks sad?

Or do we finally admit the standard was explicit long before this, and that the real fucking problem is not the law, but the double standard in how we choose to apply it?

You can mourn a death and acknowledge what the law actually says. I know the left will find this hard to believe, but real adults can hold two thoughts at once.

But you do not get to screech “rule of law!” on Monday and pretend it does not exist on Tuesday just because the optics are uncomfortable, the protest signs are loud, and your preferred narrative just caught a serious bitch slap from reality.

So, what now?

Does the rule of law prevail?

Or do you backpedal like a social-media Karen hunting for her fifteen minutes of righteous outrage?

Please pick one or shut the fuck up.

By Brian Wilson: The Bipartisan Patriot