MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — A Minnesota State Patrol officer shot and killed a 48-year-old woman Saturday afternoon in Oakdale, Minn., after she dragged him down the road as he hung halfway out her window, police said.

At a press conference Saturday, police said the trooper pulled the woman over at 1:40 p.m. for a routine equipment failure stop near the intersection of Interstate 94 and Century Avenue.

According to the Minnesota State Patrol, the trooper saw nothing out of the ordinary at first. The woman was alone, and when she was asked to get out of her car, investigators said she spoke with the trooper for some time.

It wasn’t until the woman got back in her car that the trooper saw what he suspected to be drugs. That’s when the woman tried to escape.

“The trooper, trying to stop the driver, reached through the passenger window at about the same time the driver took off under rapid acceleration,” said Lt. Col. Matt Langer. “The trooper became hung up half-way inside the vehicle half-way outside the vehicle and he fired his service weapon as he was being dragged down the freeway.”

Investigators said the trooper was dragged more than 200 feet before he fired his weapon.

The woman was taken to Regions Hospital, where she was pronounced dead.

Langer said the officer, who suffered road rash on his knees and one of his wrists, is lucky to return to his family Saturday night.

Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) Senior Special Agent Drew Evans said the preliminary investigation showed there was a large amount of suspected narcotics in the woman’s car.

Investigators described the suspected drug as a white crystal-like substance. Investigators said they would test it to determine what it is.

The trooper’s name and the that of that woman who was killed have not been released.

An autopsy has been scheduled for Sunday.

The trooper, who has 12 years on the job, is on paid administrative leave, which is standard procedure, while the BCA investigates the circumstances behind the traffic stop and the shooting.

Reg Chapman

Comments (139)
  1. Sam I Am says:

    Hope the officer is ok! Thin the heard!!

    1. Mike says:

      Would it be a reasonable assumption to say that if your a State Patrol officer reaching into a running vehicle is a stupid thing to do? Why would any officer of the law find it necessary to put themselves in such any incredibly dangerous situation over a car with possibly illegal drugs in it?
      That is not to say, if you get pulled over by law enforcement your likely not going to get shot if you comply, but killing someone because they don’t obey is stretching reason beyond it’s boundary. .
      This is a tragic and completely unnecessary story that ended the life of someone over possession of possibly illegal drugs. The administration of law enforcement has encroached to a point on society that makes it worse than the
      act they are tying to enforce. Drugs are a scourge on society, but overzealous, unreasonable Rambo style police protection is equally a problem.

      1. fred says:

        pretty sure the patrolman gave warning he would have to shoot if she didn`t stop. put yourself in the officers place. it`s either shoot or be killed.

      2. Brian says:

        Yes you’re right. It would have been much better if he’d allowed the driver to flee the scene, then initiated a traffic pursuit. This would have only endangered every motorist on the road. Rather than shoot and endanger one person, he should have risked the safety of each and every motorist on the road by chasing her at 100+ mph. After all, it’s better to injure/kill someone innocent than a “suspected” criminal who commits a felony by fleeing the scene of a traffic stop, right? Better yet…why not just let her go. Yeah…cops should let all criminals go. That way, no cops, no suspects, only innocent people would be hurt. Great idea.

      3. Bawney Piglosi Every Libs Favorite says:

        Mike, you are out of your mind and I hope you never need help. Great idea to start a chase. Who else has to get killed before you liberal loons realize that laws are there for a reason? Get a clue or move!!!

    2. Starsky says:

      His story makes no sense. If he’s dangling from the car to where he has knee road rash, let go. If he’s in far enough to be able to grab his weapon, climb in and subdue. And how unbelievably slow was she going for all this to happen while she only went 200 feet? And if he let he back in the car, how’d he end up on the passenger side? Doesn’t add up at all based on this story.

    3. Sgt.Bellows says:

      A well trained officer would have the motorist turn the vehicle off,not allow it to remain running during his traffic stop.

  2. Grim Reaper says:

    P.S. That was at a poster who’s comment has been deleted, thankfully.

    1. sad but true says:

      Doesn’t matter which poster your comment was targeted to or for what reason. That’s a terrible thing to post.

  3. g8bbgg says:

    Get pulled over, use your car as a weapon? Good Lord we really need to pour chlorine in the gene pool…..

    1. sad but true says:

      This is what our gene pool is getting filled with. See this Judge Judy video about a St.Paul welfare case.


  4. PS says:

    stupidity on that womans part ! she got what she deserved johnny the moron law says any office who is being threatened with harm my use deadly force and a 4thousand pound car is a deadly weapon maybe johnny would like to serve the sab sentence for her now that she can’t !!!

  5. johnny says:

    you were there you know what happened, so what fully happened, why did she deserve it, man has a right to condemn others?? story get wrote, cops always right, your just another sheep that bows down to them, great come back by the way just call names i remember when i did that when i was 10

    1. James says:

      The officer’s life was at risk. I wasn’t there but I can only assume he didn’t shoot with the intent to kill, likely just to stop her from driving over him. But again, none of us internet critics were there so we will never know.

      1. Don't assume... says:

        Officers are trained to shoot to kill. That’s why they don’t take leg shots. The rounds they use are tactical bonded rounds to penetrate barriers, then mushroom, fragment, and cause trauma when they hit their mark. Thankfully, this trooper hit his mark. Glad he’s ok!!

        1. Top Cop says:

          Wrong, Officers are trained to shoot to stop the threat, not to kill. It just so happens that people seem to die sometimes when this happens.

          1. Going home to my wife & kids says:

            That may be how you operate, sir. Not me. Your politically-correct poetic largess sounds great to civilians, policy-writers, and lawyers who know nothing about law enforcement. You’ve got to be a supervisor. Scary.

            1. Top Cop says:

              @ Going home to my wife & kids. I am not a supervisor. I take it you have never been in front of a grand jury. If you happen to go in front of one, tell them you shot to kill, the prosecution will tear you a new aH@le. I’m just a dumb street cop who can guarentee works in a larger department than you, unless you work in mine.

              1. a real street cop says:

                @Top Cop, not sure what grand jury you’ve been in front of, but the current use of force laws in MN say you better only shoot to kill. If the threat does not warrant killing, you better not shoot. Who the heck is your training officer? Or do you sleep through training because you already know everything? A “dumb street cop” calling him/herself Top Cop has a real arrogance problem, I sure hope you are not a member of my department because you sound like a first class jerk with little man syndrome..

                1. Top Cop says:

                  Read the statute. I don’t sleep through traning… Seems that you have a lack of, maybe you should have a one on one with your city attorney.

                2. Good night Top Cop says:

                  When even other cops are slamming you, it’s time to admit you might be wrong and hang it up for the night. You’re making a fool of yourself

                3. Street cop says:

                  Do you honestly believe you can shoot someone just to stop a threat if the threat doesn’t warrant a result of death? Maybe you should talk to your County Attorney, since they handle the felonies, not a City Attorney. Have you ever been involved in a shooting or death? I have. I know the statutes inside and out, upside down and backwards. I am fortunate to have one of the best County Attorneys in the State, who knows the statutes. I know what the trooper is about to go through. I know what I would say to you if I were him and were reading your posts. Your attempted defense of him is making it worse. Good night, God Bless, I’m done.

                4. Top Cop says:

                  It is probably going to be the City Attorny who represents you when you get the big call, unless you have a Federation or can afford to retain Fred Bruno. I am aware that the County Attorney handles felonies and charges them out, but they do not defend you in law suits. It is your city attorney as I am assuming you work for a suburb or a small town…. I sure you the FOP legal defense plan.

                5. Baby Blue says:

                  Sorry Street cop…. Even I gotta call you out on this one brother… I’m glad you have a good County Attorney that knows the statutes inside and out and am glad that you made it out of your officer involved shooting unscaved. I’m sure by your statement that you are familiar with the process of giving Garrity Statement to the investigating body and having an attorney present and consulting with them in a shooting death or any incustody death. I don’t know a defense attorney alive, even the real bottom feeding ones, that will have you say anything to the effect that you “shot to kill.” Since there is a threat that is putting your life or another’s live in the danger of great bodily harm or death then you use whatever force that is objectively reasonable up to and including deadly force to stop the threat. This will also apply when you go in front of a “FEDERAL” Grand Jury, something your awesome County Attorney will have nothing to do with unless they are double dipping as a Federal Prosecutor also, which is highly unlikely. By you remarks about your County Attorney it is also clear that you do not work in Hennepin County, so my guess is outstate somewhere. At least you got one thing right. The Trooper involved did the right thing, and came out with non-life threatening injuries instead of death. Maybe I’m wrong with my 20+ years on the job and several critical incidents so feel free to correct me if you feel that I am wrong.

                6. A Deputy says:

                  I agree with street cop. If you shoot someone just to stop them from doing what they were doing, and it was not necessary to kill them (whether they die or not) you are going to be in trouble in rural MN. I think there is a misunderstanding in all these posts about “shoot to kill” and that’s where all the disagreements are coming from. My partner was in a situation that necessitated deadly force. He said he shot to kill before he got killed. The facts were there, he told the truth, it was over. Obviously outstate is a very different world than the metro. All cops should say a prayer for the trooper involved, as we all know how easy it is for everyone to second guess your split-second decision. There but for the grace of God go a lot of us–police and civilians alike. If we would all support each other a little more, respect each other a little more, there probably wouldn’t be a need for all the nasty comments on this article.

          2. Street cop says:

            I disagree with your last statement. Officers are trained to shoot until the threat is stopped, not to stop the threat. If the situation/threat does not warrant killing the suspect, you don’t shoot. We are not trained to shoot to injure. Shooting someone in the knee to stop them from running away is not legal anymore. If you are really a “Top Cop”, maybe you need to sit down with your department’s firearms/use of force instructor and learn what the current laws say…
            Since we weren’t at the scene mentioned in this article, we should not speculate as to what happened. A “Top Cop” would know that.

            1. Top Cop says:

              @ Street cop. You are now playing a game of semantics. Any use of force or range instructor will tell you that your are trained to shoot to stop the threat. If it takes 1 or 30 shots, do what you need to do. I never said to shoot anyone in the knee to stop them from running away. Where did you get that from? Just like you, I am taught to shoot for center mass and the head. As that is the quickest way to stop a threat since you are disabling the cardiopulmonary system or the central nervous system. I am not speculating on anything. A trooper was being dragged by a car. Someone was driving it. This is a deadly force situation. The trooper used deadly force and stopped the threat to save his own life. Please take time to read the entire post.

              1. Street cop says:

                @TopCop–get out your dictionary and look up the word “metaphor.” Then you will understand my post and the shot to the knee use. Your posts indicate that an officer shouldn’t say they shot to kill. You are wrong. You should only shoot if you need/have to kill, not at any other time. A previous post of yours said if an officer admits they shot to kill, the prosecution would hang them. You are wrong. Get over yourself. Any cop reading this story is probably thinking it is a justified shooting. The public may not. We should stop speculating and let the investigation carry itself out. Prayers to the trooper involved. His life has changed forever.

                1. Top Cop says:

                  @ Street Cop….Like I said. Wait until you get in front of a grand jury. You only shoot if you have the need to use deadly force. I’m sure when you get the big call and retain Fred Bruno he will tell you the exact same thing I’m telling you. Just make sure you put in quotes that you “shot to kill” in your report, I’m kidding. It is obvious you haven’t been involved in a critical incident. You are letting these libs get your emotions all heated up. I think that the use of force was completely justified. READ MY POSTS.

              2. MetroCopper says:

                @Street Cop & Top Cop & Going home to my wife and kids-lets not fight eachother, ladies and gents. We all know we’re on the same side, regardless of how we choose to word our particular opinions. Let’s all just be glad it wasn’t us (at least not this time) and hope for the best for this trooper and his family. Stay safe all!

    2. Dave says:

      That’s right…”sheep” follow the law. Rebels drag cops down the road and get a lead salad.

  6. PS says:

    matt hop go have another shot of STUPIDITY!

  7. Brian says:

    @matt hop-If your comment wasn’t enough to convince everybody on here that you’re an idiot, your spelling sure did. Oh any by the way, the law gives an officer the authority to use deadly force any time they fear for their life or the life of another, regardless of whether or not a gun is involved.

    1. Frank says:

      Sorry Brian, they can’t use deadly force when it is not warranted. A routine traffic stop does not include sticking your body in a car, getting dragged, then shooting someone. Based on the facts presented in the article, this looks like a cop mistake.

      1. Referee says:

        And you’re the one to say deadly force wasn’t warranted?

        1. GetReal says:

          Amazing that the excuse for shooting and killing the woman was “being dragged” yet this officer could;
          A) reach for his gun
          B) take aim
          C) shoot the gun
          D) hit his target ( which was another human being)
          yet was somehow unable to simply disengage from the car !

          1. Top Cop says:

            @ GetReal. Try being dragged by a car and see how it feels, what your perception is and if you come out OK before you post a bunch of BS.

            1. GetReal says:

              TopCop, you are a hot head and your posts prove it. I am allowed to express my opinions, just the same as you. I have a legal background, and yes, you are most definitely considered to be an officer of the court. It is not up to you to decide guilt or innocence, nor dispense punishment. Deadly force is to be used only for self defense, or in defense of others, *if all other methods have failed*.
              And since I have enough common sense to not stick my head into a running car that is moving away, it is unlikely I will “see how it feels”, so your point is moot.

              1. Top Cop says:

                @ GetReal. I don’t really think you have a legal background. I am not an officer of the court. I am an officer of the State of Minnesota the POST Board is not governed by the courts but by the legislature, there is a difference. I do however enforce court orders from time to time as well as the laws set by the legislature. I don’t decide guilt or innocence or dispense punishment but establish reasonable suspicion and probable cause and I definitely don’t despense punishment. That is actually the job of the court system of which you say that I am an officer of. I am also allowed to use deadly force. Also instead of jumping to a conclusion, you don’t know if the car was moving if the trooper stuck his head in it or not. Bottom line is that you weren’t there. Shooting someone who is driving a car that is dragging you is self defense, look at the case law. You don’t hold the suspect accountable for their actions at all. Fleeing in a motor vehicle is a FELONY, that was what the suspect was doing. But I’m sure your supposed legal background simply overlooked that. My points are not moot. I also agree that you are allowed to express your opinion and welcome it as well as enjoy our discussion. However, I really wish you would do your research and actually put some facts out there instead of your humble opinion which is simply an opinion.

          2. Jake says:

            Not much ‘aiming’ has to take place to hit a target when you are only a foot away.
            He was most likely trying to prevent her from using her car as a 2 ton missile, and killing another innocent human being. I salute him for his efforts.

          3. Pro Cop says:

            Yes, it is much easier to stop the car (shoot the driver) than jump out and face a nasty injury-hints the reason why deadly force was used!

      2. Smarter than you says:

        Frank, you’re trying to stir the pot. Why do people waste their time making stupid comments like this? Get a life

      3. Chris says:

        All she had to do was listen to his commands and stop. Even if his head is in the car….why continue to drive? How is that his fault? She could have hit the brakes and stopped. She chose not too. JUSTIFIED!

  8. KeepItReal says:

    It is a bit alarming that a routine traffic stop turns into a shooting. Why was his head in the car? Probably trying to grab the keys out of the ignition…not part of protocol. Sound like an over zealous cop escalated the situation to try to show his “strength and control”…based on the facts provided in this article, not a justified shooting. He should not have tried to get in the car to stop her.

    1. MetroCopper says:

      @KeepItReal & Frank-I don’t think either of you are POST licensed officers. I, however, am. Brian is exactly right. Check out MN statute 609.066. Plain as day in black and white. The term “routine traffic stop” should not exist, because there’s no such thing. I don’t think either of you have the training, nor the background to Monday morning quarterback this trooper’s actions. However, to each of your credit, you did make the disclaimer that you decision was based on the information contained in the article. Before you start placing blame, do you suppose that some very important details may have been purposely left out or withheld from the media, so as not to compromise the investigation? Rest assured, the answers will come in due time. And mark my words…this shooting WILL be justified and the trooper will NEVER be charged.

      1. FrankIam says:

        Same attitude that Hitler and his followers had. Sure, yea, just follow what the police say…how’d that work out. When the facts come out they will show that the cop escalated the situation and the shooting was not justified. This will end up costing the tax payers MILLIONS in legal fees and pay outs to the family.

        1. Get Serious says:

          There is no way. This won’t cost the taxpayers any more than any other jury trial. When the grand jury sees the facts of this case, rest assured there will be no indictments for this trooper. And the grounds for a civil suit filed on behalf of the family are shaky, at best. People are so caught up in WHAT happened they can’t wrap their heads around WHY it happened. If she’d complied with the troopers orders, she’d be sitting in jail with three hots and a cot…and she’d have the benefit of the courts to decide if she’d been wrongfully arrested/accused. She chose not to comply.

          1. a real street cop says:

            @ Get Serious. Well said!! Thank you.

      2. MetroCop says:

        Yes facts left out to protect the police…not compromise the investigation. Ever see the Dave Chapell show? Sprinkle crack on the vicitim, them the media will report it in the headlines and make it look they were just a crazy crack head.

    2. Whitey Fjord says:

      Tell you what slick, let’s wait for the investigation is over instead of assuming

    3. Top Cop says:

      KeepItReal…Or he may have been investigating the white crystal like substance that could have been in plain view of the vehicle. If you knew anything about how we do our jobs then you would know that there are only general guidlines and there is no “PROTOCOL” because every situation that we deal with is completely different. Maybe you should actually do the job before you throw your two sense in. But then again it is because of people like you the Supreme Court ruled the way it did on Graham v. Connor, stating that you as a civillian are not allowed to judge what reasonable force is. So with that in mind your input is completely disregarded by anyone who actually has a brain or actually knows what they are talking about. I await your retort.

      1. GetReal says:

        Well it’s us “civilians” that pay you, so you can cut the attitude. You are not above the law, nor do you even write the laws, you are merely armed officers of the court. You do have to answer for your actions, just like everyone else. This situation did not have to result in a woman getting shot. I have known plenty of officers that are alcoholics/drug users…yet no one claims they “deserve” to be shot and killed. This woman was a human being, just like you. Unlike you, she did not have a badge and a gun. Now she is dead. You justify it. Apparently you think you are a one-person judge and jury as well as a cop-

        1. Top Cop says:

          @GetReal. Your ignorance defenitley proceeds you. Read the Supremem Court Case I posted. I as a peace officer reasonably believe that a car is a weapon and being dragged by one is deadly force, therefore there is nothing wrong with what this officer did, ask Jamed Byrd, if you even know who that is. Irregardless of that officers are allowed to use a step above when it comes to force. I think you need to do some real research before you blog. I don’t have an attitude and we are not armed officers of the court. It is you with the angry attitude and hostility towards law enforcement. You have no common sense.

          1. KeepItReal says:

            Top Cop, you are quoting a valid case, but it may not apply. So a car that driving away from you can be shot at? HOw about if it is across the street? Going the other direction? Exactly. What matters here is how got tangled up. If the car was driving away and he ran up to it and grabbed a hold, sticking his body half in side, then the court case has little if any application. Maybe he would have been safer letting go of the car. By shooting the driver, he could have made the car swerve into on coming traffic or even worse outcomes. The courts will look at events leading up to shooting, not just say the prior case law prevails a a car was involved so therefore the shooting was justified. Your constant quoting of prior case law makes you look foolish when it may not apply/probably is not material.

            1. Top Cop says:

              @ KeepItReal, It is obvious how you don’t have any legal background. You are throwing variables in this case that don’t even exist. You are a complete ignoramus.

              1. You're pathetic says:

                @TopCop, get over yourself. You claim to work for the largest dept in MN, which means Mpls PD, which is responsible for more precedance, case law, civil lawsuits and new POST mandated training than every other law enforcement agency in MN combined, because of “dumb street cops” (Your words, not mine) making stupid decisions and not knowing how to treat people other than to treat them like c__p or beat the c__p out out of them. Anybody who refers to themselves as TopCop sounds like nothing more than an arrogant little turd who is so full of themselves, they’ve never been promoted to supervisor (again, your words that you are not a supervisor.) You are the kind of cop that give all cops a bad name. Grow up, man up, take a good look at yourself and figure out that nobody, including you, is perfect..

        2. Spin it GetReal says:

          What 48 year old moron runs from the cops? Her own actions lead to her death. Plain and simple there GetReal.

      2. targetpolice says:

        Listen pal. I work security at Target, don’t give me this in-the -line-of duty tough boy act. come walk the isles with me and I’ll show you what it’s like putting your life in danger everyday!….wuss!!

      3. KeepItReal says:

        Its “two cents”, not “two sense”, and the officer would have removed the people from the car, before investigating “white powder.” If he had concerns for his safety, he would have called for backup to watch the auto occupants or cuffed them and placed them in the cruiser. Top Cop, the citizens know that you all protect each other, but you are guessing what may have happened just like the rest of us. And the fact that most are not policemen doesn’t make them any less capable to see that something went wrong here and there is a very good chance that deadly force was not warranted and was used after a series of mistakes by the officer. Lastly, to state that there is not protocol and that every stop is different, shows that you don’t pay attention during training or you are not a cop at all.



    5. @keepitreal says:

      I wish he would have let her go and she would have crashed head on into your family, that would of been the only better outcome, it seems you would prefer that.

  9. My 2 cents says:

    I’ve had a few run-ins with troopers over the past few years (unfortunately for me!) But I must say, even though they cited me, none of the troopers I’ve had contact with has that arrogant, short-fused, my-way-or-the-highway, respect my authority attitude that cops around my place seem to have. The troopers I’ve dealt with were boyscouts (figureatively speaking, of course). I’m sure there’s a lot of info the public doesn’t have. I personally give the troopers the benefit of any doubt! Despite many of the nay-sayers on here.

  10. Top Cop says:

    I wish the term “Routine Traffic Stop” would stop being used. There is no such thing as a routine traffic stop. EVERY SINGLE ONE IS DIFFERENT!

    1. Shelley says:

      And any one can turn deadly.

  11. Top Cop says:

    I wish people would stop using the term “Routine Traffic Stop.” There is no such thing as a routine traffic stop. EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT!!!

    1. zee the reporter says:

      it’s time for you to go!

    2. Leave it at one says:

      Hey top cop one post is good, two makes you look like an idiot

  12. FrogtownJoe says:

    Meth kills in more ways than one… I know a person who knows the lady and I guess she had a drug problem.. Do the crime, do the time or…… End up 6 ft under.. Those are usually your choices when you play with the hard stuff (meth, crack, coke, heroin).. I’m glad the cop is OK, she had no right to endanger his life because SHE didn’t want to “do the time”…

  13. Chuck says:

    Your comments are garbage the chick should have never got back in the car the trooper can’t just let her go at that point. If you let her go and find out that she has just kidnapped a child and killed that child down the road then that is something that could have been prevented by killing this lady as she tried to use her car as a deadly weapon against the trooper. Please think before you post

    1. EnjoyYourLossOfFreedom says:

      Your comments are garbage… your are using an “If”, purely fictional story to justify this? How about this “if: story;
      what if she was an under-cover cop/agent and was in hot pursuit of a case to important to stop and explain?
      What “if” she was mentally slow ( yes, they drive and use drugs too) and became so frightened she made the error of trying to get away?
      What “if” she was a war veteran with PTSD and had a flash back?
      What “if” she had a medical condition and HAD TO LEAVE?
      What “if” that “suspicious substance” turned out to be nothing at all?
      What “if” that cop had missed, and killed a member of YOUR family??
      “If” is pretty powerful, isn’t it?

      1. Yes says:

        Soooooo…the officer should have let her run him over? You are thinking shallow. Driving is not a right. If you get a DL, then you agree to follow the rules of the road. Some of your points are crazy. A medical condition? Really? I think I’d welcome a trooper with a medical bag in his trunk and a radio to call for EMT’s if I was having a medical condition. What if the substance was nothing?? Then why run??? I mean really, take a moment to think, I think you just don’t like cops and no matter what you will find a reason to complain

      2. If...... says:

        ……only you had a brain!

      3. Jake says:

        If she was an undercover cop, I seriously doubt that she would have jumped back into her car and tried to drive away when the trooper told her not to. Undercover cops aren’t rookies, they don’t put other cops’ lives at risk.

        If she was mentally ‘slow’, why would she SUDDENLY jump back into her car and try to get away if she knew that she had done nothing seriously wrong? She was 48 and had NO arrest history in MN. Don’t you think that by now, if she had a ‘slow’ problem, that there would be some history there?

        If she was a war vet with PTSD, that doesn’t excuse such actions, I recall a vet getting shot by a cop near St. Cloud a couple of years ago, the shooting was ruled JUSTIFIED.

        If she had a medical condition, she could have asked the trooper for help, who probably been much more helpful than she could ever imagine. He had the best emergency radios that any cop in the state could possess.

        If that ‘suspicious substance’ was indeed nothing at all, then she had NO REASON TO TRY TO GET AWAY.

        If the cop had missed (a pretty far-fetched possibility, given that they were on the shoulder of a freeway and he was a foot away from her), I seriously doubt that ANYBODY else would have been subjected to a high risk of serious injury. Do you know ANYTHING about handguns?

        1. DOH says:

          I think that post was meant to be ridiculous after the guy posted the “waht if she was a child killer trying to get away”.

  14. GetReal says:

    TopCop, you are a hot head and your posts prove it. I am allowed to express my opinions, just the same as you. I have a legal background, and yes, you are most definitely considered to be an officer of the court. It is not up to you to decide guilt or innocence, nor dispense punishment. Deadly force is to be used only for self defense, or in defense of others, *if all other methods have failed*.
    And since I have enough common sense to not stick my head into a running car that is moving away, it is unlikely I will “see how it feels”, so your point is moot.

    1. MetroCopper says:

      “Legal background” here meaning “I’m not a lawyer, but I took a criminal justice class back in college, so I know my rights.” Moron

      1. Jake says:

        Yeah, so “GetReal’ thinks that the cop shouldn’t have tried to stop the car when he had a chance by maybe getting the keys out of the ignition. He should have let the meth-head/coke-head take off on a metro area freeway, maybe running away at obscene speeds, until she crashed into another innocent motorist or pedestrian, maybe killing THEM instead. Sorry, I’m backing the cop 100%. It was pointless for her to even try to run, the Trooper already had the license plates on the car, no doubt she would have been caught sooner or later. SHE made the BAD choice.

        1. domesticdispute says:

          Thats the whole point moron, the cop didn’t need to escalate the situation to the point he had half of his body in her car. She’s dead and he has a skinned knee. She had no criminal record but her husband did. It very well could have been his stuff in the car and she was scared. Now she is dead. She can’t speak for herself or what happened because SHE IS DEAD. He has a skinned knee. Cops are never wrong, are they?

          1. KeepItReal says:

            curly_racks you are not representing others who may think the cop made a mistake. Cops are not pigs and they should not die in the job. They put their lives on the line to protect citizens. Believing that one made a mistake, does not make the rest of them bad. Have some class!

          2. Jake says:

            Hey, fool, the cop didn’t escalate the situation, the idiot woman did. So, you are saying that the cop should just stand there and watch her drive away? REALLY? That’s not what I would expect a cop to do. She gambled, and she lost big time. Think about that the next time you get pulled over and the cop tells you NOT to jump back into your car and try to drive away.

  15. zee the reporter says:

    BS i don’t believe this cops story

    1. zee the reporter says:

      this is going to bring out a community rage with cops

      1. Zee, please go away says:

        You are such a putz.

        1. Zee needs a life says:

          Zee–You get called a putz, you say the putz’s ass stinks, guess that means you stink! Wow, you are a putz!

  16. Nikole says:

    I love…just LOVE the people who comment on here who have NO idea what it’s like to protect and serve. I’m guessing the majority on here just work a cushy 9-5 job (if employed at all), and the only stress they feel at their job is whether or not they answered an important e-mail in time, or rotated someone’s tires in the right order. I admire anyone who has the courage to protect me and my family…even though they will probably never know who we are. It’s called selflessness. Not everyone has it. Certainly not the ones who comment on here questioning the actions of the Trooper involved in this incident. My thoughts and prayer go out to this Trooper and his family.

    1. AlwaysNihole says:

      You’re probably a stay at home mother, you don’t know the meaning of stress, you think you have a tough life, you spend all day with your children, yet you consider it babysitting. Are you implying that managing 25 people has no stress, some who come in everyday, some who have a crisis everyday. I believe this shooting is justified, but im not foolish enough to think that everyday a P.officer’s life is in danger and under constant fire and stress.

  17. GetReal says:

    Rest assured this incident will be carefully researched. You state you want facts yet you have no more knowledge of what happened in this incident than I do. You have prejudged the woman knowing nothing about her nor even if the *suspicious* substance was anything at all ( hopefully an independent lab will be the one to determine what it is). Can you prove her intent was to cause harm to the officer rather than merely to flee the scene? Even if she did commit a felony, an officer of the law is not the person to decide how to punish a felony offense, nor dispense the punishment ( which , by the way, is not a death sentence). That is for a court of law, with judge and jury. Recently the wife of a prominent Twin Cities family fled the scene of a fatal accident she caused; she was not shot to death by an officer of the law even though her actions caused the death of another. The woman in this story today attempted ,most likely due to fear, to drive away. You know as little about the case as I do yet you justify her death. See the problem?

    1. MetroCopper says:

      @GetReal-You idiot! The trooper didn’t shoot her because she was suspected of felony drug possession. He shot her because he was in fear of death or great bodily harm. Which, by the way, IS LEGAL for him to do. He did not sentence her to death. She did that herself when she ignored his commands to stop. Cops have powers of arrest for a reason; you don’t just get to do whatever you feel like doing. And rest assured, if Senser’s wife had hit and dragged a cop down the freeway, she’d be in the morgue too. WHY she drove away (fear, anger, indifference) is not the issue. If you were smarter than sawdust, you’d see that

      1. NOT A SERIOUS THREAT says:

        Are you telling me that the big bad cop couldn’t hit this little girl in the face in order to get her attention. How bad could his hand/arm get stuck in the steering wheel in the first place?

        Why did he even have his hand on the wheel?



        1. Is a threat. says:

          Let’s see, why would he have his hand on the wheel? 1) Make her pull over. 2) to reach across and turn the ignition off. 3) to put the car into neutral so he didn’t get dragged a half mile before the asphalt wore his body parts off.

          If she flees, she dumps the drugs, then the cops can’t prosecute her even if they do catch her at home. It’s called evidence. You need that in a court case, or so I’ve heard. Also, as already mentioned, she is liable to continue to flee at high speed until she feels safe, which endangers the general public.

          Yes, I have police officers in my family.

          1. Jojj says:


            if she had been asked to step out of her car, which she had and had conversation with the trooper that sounds like a normal stop however (from past experiences) perhaps the trooper walked around to the passengers side
            and leaned over the door and proceeded to search her vehicle, the women knowing her rights” because of her husbands records” was fueled by the illeagal search paniced, shouting at the officer to “get out” got into her car and proceeded to flee from illeagal practice of a law officer. The question now if that had happened how can this be Justified if both actions were wrong.

    2. Pro Cop says:

      You comment on a case that is not remotely related to this one-first the victim of the fatal accident did not have a chance to defend themselves-such as the Trooper did in this case. Next, unlike in the case of the fatal accident, the suspect did not comply with the request of Law Enforcement Officals-resulting in deadly force having to be used to gain this complance. In my book, the Trooper saved many lives today and in the future by the actions that he took not only to protect himself, but to stop the suspect. Also I am proud to say that I know many Police Officers, Troopers and Sheriffs Deptuies that put their lives on the line daily to protect all of us. On a side note, I do find it funny that the individuals, who seem to complain the most about Law Enforcement Officals carring out their duties and also the ones that expect them to be at their beaking call when they are the victim.

    3. Chuck says:

      Good people don’t run from cops!

  18. Blue Line Brad says:

    @ Real Street Cop where does it say shoot to kill in the statue? Sounds like you better go back to skills.

    Subdivision 1.Deadly force defined.For the purposes of this section, “deadly force” means force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which the actor should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing, death or great bodily harm. The intentional discharge of a firearm, other than a firearm loaded with less lethal munitions and used by a peace officer within the scope of official duties, in the direction of another person, or at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be, constitutes deadly force. “Less lethal munitions” means projectiles which are designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person. “Peace officer” has the meaning given in section 626.84, subdivision 1.

    Subd. 2.Use of deadly force.Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06 or 609.065, the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only when necessary:

    (1) to protect the peace officer or another from apparent death or great bodily harm;

    (2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of deadly force; or

    (3) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm if the person’s apprehension is delayed.

    Subd. 3.No defense.This section and sections 609.06, 609.065 and 629.33 may not be used as a defense in a civil action brought by an innocent third party.

    History: 1978 c 736 s 2; 1986 c 444; 2001 c 127 s 1

    1. What's Your Point? says:

      Hey Blue Line Brad–there’s a reason it’s called DEADLY FORCE. Anyone with a brain can figure out what Real Street Cop is saying. Did you have a lobotomy at your skills class?? Read your own post–“The intentional discharge of a firearm, other than a firearm loaded with less lethal munitions and used by a peace officer within the scope of official duties, in the direction of another person, or at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be, constitutes DEADLY force.” What exactly is your arguement to street cop? An intentional discharge of a firearm constitutes deadly force–that’s what street cop said, that’s what you are saying. Why are you criticizing someone saying the same thing as you??

      1. Blue Line Brad says:

        What’s Your Point…. Maybe you should come back to skills and sit through my report writing class. Then you would know where I’m coming from on how attorneys and the public will twist your comments and why we should word things in a certain way.

        1. What's Your Point? says:

          @ BLue Line Brad. I am not a police officer. But, I am reading all these posts, wondering why you are taking pot shots at an officer who agrees with you. You are the one twisting people’s comments. I hope you are not the arrogant jack hole you sound like on your posts. If you are, you may be the explanation for the arrogant attitudes of some of the new officers coming out of skills. The police officers are know are humble, respectful and hard-working–a credit to their profession. You sound like the complete opposite.

    2. Pro Cop says:

      Would that not be a given by the heading of the statue-Deadly Force????

      1. Taspayer says:

        That’s kind of what I thought. And I’m not a cop, a lawyer, a report writing teacher or anything to do with the enforcement of law! I hope Blue Line Brad is not on duty right now, I’d be a little irritated if I was a resident of the community he’s supposed to be protecting and he’s busy writing nasty comments on the internet…

        1. TC PO PO says:

          Taspayer. Glad you are not a cop or a lawyer. You are even too dumb to realize that cops also get days off.

      2. TC PO PO says:

        Just because you use deadly force does not mean the suspect always dies.

        1. Taxpayer says:

          @ TC PO PO. Tslk about dumb, look at yourself in the mirrror and you will see the perfect definition. They said ” I hope” Brad is not on duty. The sentence indicates the writer knows there is a distinct possibility that Brad is not on duty. No where does it say in the posts that using deadly force mean a person will die–you just twisted more comments so you could make a snarky remark and make yourself feel better than the little man you are. TC PO PO and Blue Line Brad the same SMALL person?? If you are “both” really cops, you’d be praying for the trooper instead of making stupid comments here trying to prove what big tough men (man) you are, while actually making yourselves seem pretty weak. Get a life.

  19. Jean says:

    This woman was trying to escape. How many times have you read where a police chase ends up with an innocent person or child getting killed by a moron trying to flee a police officer. The police did the correct thing as his life was in danger and she could have put other drivers in danger.

    All of you who are so anti police, I would bet you might change your mind if you or someone in your family were in danger and needed a police officer.

    It seems to me all the negative comments about the police, have had run ins with authority and I am thinking maybe you were doing something that you should not have been doing. And of course, you never take responsibility for your own actions.

    1. JustAMom says:

      I’ve never had even a ticket in my life, or arrest,and am a law abiding middle aged woman. I am disgusted at how many of you are completely ok with a woman being shot to death after fleeing a routine traffic stop. We don’t know anything about this case or woman and you defend shooting another human to death in broad daylight. What has this nation come to?

  20. JustPoFolk says:

    “Women who are Prominent Twin Cities Family Members” run over and kill people and flee the scene and then “ask the public for privacy”…
    Women who MAYBE use drugs are shot and killed for trying to flee the scene of a traffic stop and are found “guilty” by public opinion before they are even cold.
    Money may not buy happiness but it apparently will keep you alive-

  21. WINNERS says:

    Listen to all you fake cops, what a shame a crackhead tried to drag a cop and you people try to defend her, she means the same alive as dead NOTIHNG. I’m a day laborer but i believe shooting this debt to society was justified, and anything that supports the methhead, drug dealing slime needs help, I only wish she’d lived long enough to sell meth to your child and they would have passed away instead, you people who hate cops deal with them conastantly, normal people never deal with police……………………FACT

  22. poFolk says:

    Money talks more than cops or attorneys. If this woman was the member of a “prominent Twin City family”, she could have fled the scene, turned herself in 24 hours later , and then “asked for privacy”.
    Sheesh, there is no justice !

  23. Glock Power says:

    The taser and the pepper spay didn’t work out so well for an innocent man in Crookston today (see seperate story). The innocent victim would be alive today had those cops used their 9mm instead.

    1. Idiot power says:

      Kinda playing fast and loose with the term “innocent.” And yes, 9mm rounds NEVER kill anyone.

  24. dan says:

    If the trooper was halfy way in the vehicle, he could have grabbed the shifter and stopped the vehicle…. he didnt need to shoot her…. Cops protecting cops is the case here… of course they dont ever do anything wrong….b.s.

    1. @Dan says:

      So well being dragged he should take all the time he can and try to wrestle his way to the shifter to put it in park, or maybe it was a clutch who even knows, Glad to see Dan is back again siding with the criminals, thats what lifelong losers do, they hate on cops, because they have spent their whole life dealing with them.

  25. P SMITH says:

    to alll the nay-sayers think that being a law enforcement officers is a peachy job GET REAL these men and women have one of the worst jobs in the world and are the butt end jokes of a lot of idiots we need to show ALL law enforcement personal respect and gratitude for the job they do ! It is very thankless and tough on them and their families ! having a brother who is a deputy sheriff and I fear for his liFE every day I also work with some of the best officers in the state of minnesota and I have only one thing to say to ALL of them ……………………………..THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND SUPPORT !

  26. Mpls says:

    Nice to review something that happened in seconds or minutes and second guess it from your couch. The cop went home from work alive and that is good. I am waiting to hear he should have waited until the car reached 60 MPH then shot the person in the foot. He was being dragged by a car and shot to save his own life end of story.

  27. ej says:

    I don’t see how the officer had a legal right to use deadly force….. why did the officer not retreat to his car for a chase….? The woman had no gun… she was not trying to shoot to get away… she was just try to get away. An she gets shoot and is now dead… The officer did not even know what the women was hiding. she was stopped for a routing traffic stop…

    1. Pro Cop says:

      Hint the car is a weapon!!! I would rather have a dead suspect (who had a large amount of drugs in her car) than a dead family because she choose to break the law-got caught-and wanting to face the music. So what you are saying is that it is alright for criminals to run from the police and cause accidents with innocent people because they do not want to go to jail for something that he or she did?

      1. ProCop2 says:

        I’m saying its not ok go shoot someone to death instead of simply tracing her license plate and arresting her at home. He made the situation “dangerous”…had he stayed in his patrol, car and called in her plate number, no one would have been killed. I’m pro cop too…pro GOOD COPS. Good cops know do not make a situation more dangerous than it needs to be.

  28. Jake says:

    Well, according to the article in the Strib, the troopers arm was caught inside of the steering wheel, and since he probably wasn’t wearing any pads (other than a vest), he certainly could have been seriously injured or killed had that car gotten up to a high rate of speed. The car was registered to Debra Koree, 48, who lived in or near a trailer court in Landfall. She has no previous criminal record in *Minnesota*, but her husband, Scott Doree, 53, has multiple convictions for drug possession and DUI. She probably knew if she got caught with dope, especially a large amount, that both her and her hubby were going to the big house.

    1. Dagbert says:

      So she had no record and the drugs were probably her husband’s stash and she got scared and tried to flee and now shes dead. He’ll get a medal and she’ll gets a funeral.

      1. Good girl who hates idiots and Ignorance says:

        Cry me a river …. She in no way was the innocent party . Even if it was her husbands …why the he** is she driving around with it even more so with it in sight ?. If she is so innocent and such a dam* saint why is she allowing herself to deal with a drug addict or dealer ? People can live a life under the radar and not get busted for years on end. So yeah she gets a funeral and yes the trooper gets to go home and so do countless others ( who knows who she might of taken out while fleeing ) all because of this trooper’s selfless act. To the trooper thanks for doing your job . One less trailer park druggie possibly dealing drugs to youth and the next generation and one less corrupt person to worry about taking us innocent good civilians out 🙂

      2. MetroCopper says:

        @Dagbert-Come on! You think she didn’t know the drugs were in the car? If she had no idea, why did she run? She knew the drugs were there. P.S. whether or not it was her husband’s stash is not relevant. Let’s say they WERE her husband’s drugs. She’s still commiting a crime…and she knew it. It’s not illegal to buy, own, or sell drugs. It’s illegal to POSSESS and DISTRIBUTE drugs. Who the drugs belonged to is a moot point.

  29. Jake says:

    Even CCW permit holders get the same kind of training as police officers. If you feel the need to shoot, you shoot for the ‘center of mass’, or ‘mass of center’, whichever you prefer. That means you don’t go for a ‘head shot’ or a ‘knee shot’. You shoot to stop the threat with the greatest probablility of stopping the threat, and that means the torso. Of course, there are many vital organs there, so the possibility of death is great. Forget what you see in the movies, such as shooting a gun out of someone’s hand or shooting them in the foot. A cop hanging out of a driver’s side window while the car is speeding away is definitely at risk of serious injury or death, and I would expect them to use potentially deadly force to stop the threat. If they don’t do it, who will? What, we have to wait until the perp actually kills one or MORE before we decide to take SERIOUS ACTIONS to stop them? What a bunch of nonsense. The sane, ‘normal’, law-abiding, general public expects our law enforcement to be PRO-ACTIVE in situations like this, not passive.

  30. confused anyone help? says:

    I’m confused as to why he was leaning into the car? can anyone lodgiclly tell me what he was doing?? and one more question, why did he shoot her while hangin on for dear life? wouldn’t that make the situation more dangerous, now no one is properly steering if she’s dead, unless he was able to steer to stop. I’m am truely glad he;s alright someone was on his side today keepin him safe, because thats a very dangerous thing that happened.



  32. Troopers rock! says:

    Minnesota State Troopers rock. They are highly trained and very professional. When you’re in trouble on the road, a Trooper is the most beautiful sight in the world. I’ve been there. Here in Rock County we depend upon them heavily as there are just a few sheriffs covering the whole county. I was happy to read that this officer was able to successfully defend his life and escape serious injury.

  33. Reality CHeck says:

    Anyone who tries to comment on this case is realy on something!

  34. Ferris Lind says:

    wow. people must have no lives going back and forth over a news story .

    p.s the cop was right for what he did .

    1. @ferry says:

      Ferry you quite often go back and forth with people on here, don’t throw stones, also the things you say never make any sense, hows your life partner doing?

  35. Chris says:

    For all you who are blaming the Trooper….SHE DIDN”T STOP! She had the ability to stop with a Trooper in her face, but she drove away. I think that is moronic!

  36. Happy up North says:

    I’m so happy the cop is ok. No way on earth was this women an innocent party.I think some of you posters watch too much T.V. With your thinking, I bet your kids hate cops too.

  37. Jake says:

    “By shooting the driver, he could have made the car swerve into on coming traffic” . For real? Did you even know that this was on I-94, which has a BARRIER between oncoming lanes? Sure, maybe the cop could have shot out a tire or two on her car, then run her down in his car and spin her into a ditch, but that could have turned out ugly as well. He didn’t know that she was a meth head with no criminal *record*, he never got the time to figure that out.

  38. Jake says:

    For all we know, that car could have been LOADED with guns, dope, cash, and the perp could have been a mass-murdering fugitive on the run. The Trooper never had the time to find out, since she decided to not be cooperative, jump back in her car, and try to take off. Had she gotten away, she could have disposed of all the evidence, only to live to do another criminal act. Sorry, but not every one who breaks the law gets to go to trial, but that’s up to the perp.

  39. jules says:

    I have been pulled over by state trooper in the same area for a “car violation”, not even a traffic stop and they were rude and disrespectful to me. I was a single mother and had my 3 year old in the back of my car. They accused me of having drugs in the car and even made me get out of the car an search my vehicle, and found nothing. I understand their job is difficult but don’t pull me over for some BS reason when you have nothing else better to do and than torment innocent drivers.

    1. Must be nice to be perfect says:

      And I’m sure you were just little miss polite daisy mae to them too. Grow up.

  40. Legal Eagle says:

    @You’re pathetic… Obviously you are not a cop, or have no clue what it takes to be one. My guess is that you are a lib that lives in powderhorn park. As an attorney I think Top Cop actually knows what he is talking about. It is quite obvious that you don’t and are a very bitter and hateful person. You come from a generation that is lazy and feels that they are entitled. Grow up.

  41. Fashion Police says:

    A Deputy or should I say street cop. Nice effort to save face.