Katherine Gordon, California resident, identified as woman in fatal I-394 police shooting

Categories: Police
fox 9 i394 shooting.jpg
Fox 9
The details of the incident are still under wraps.
Katherine Gordon, a 58-year-old woman from California who'd recently moved to Minnesota, has been identified as the woman shot and killed by a Golden Valley Police officer after she was pulled over on I-394.

Gordon's identity was released by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner, which announced Gordon's identity on Friday, and said she'd died after sustaining multiple gunshot wounds. She was killed around 1:30 p.m. Thursday afternoon, after an officer pulled her over near Hopkins Crossroad.

Golden Valley Police Department issued a statement that day stating that the driver had been "in possession of a handgun" at the time of the shooting, but since then the department, and the Hennepin County Sherriff's Office, which is investigating the event, have gone mum with new details.

Gordon's roommate, Charmane Schodde, gave an interview to WCCO in which she described Gordon as someone who "would never hurt anybody."

Gordon left Altadena, California, just north of Los Angeles, only a few months ago, and moved to Minneapolis to live with Schodde.

charmaine schodde.jpg
WCCO
Charmaine Schodde saysher roommate Katherine Gordon was "very harmless."
Schodde told WCCO that Gordon was "very harmless," and said she can't imagine what led up to Gordon's shooting. Schodde said she couldn't believe that Gordon actually pointed the gun at an officer, or used the fact that she had a gun to threaten the cop.

"But if she did get out with a gun," Schodde told WCCO, "my thought would be that she was just intending to show an officer that she had a gun with her in her possession. There's just no way that Katherine would have been threatening an officer."

City Pages called the Hennepin County Sherrif's Office with numerous queries, including the nature of the stop and whether Gordon had wielded the gun in her possession, but as of yet no questions are being answered. The investigation into the incident could take weeks, according to spokeswoman Lisa Kiava, at which point the results would be turned over to the Hennepin County Attorney's Office, Kiava said.

The officer involved in Thursday's shooting is on the standard administrative leave that follows officer involved shootings, and the officer's identity has not been made public.

Previously
:


Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
17 comments
westsidebob
westsidebob

Mind your P's and Q's around the gestapo.

Dustin
Dustin

Next time you morons get pulled over for speeding why dont you try getting out of the car with a gun in your hand and see what happens.  Sheer stupidity.  Either she was crazy and committed suicide by cop or Darwinism just caught up with her.

Who is Ceelo
Who is Ceelo

Would love to see all of you drive 90+ MPH on I-394 and wave a gun in the air when the cop pulls you over.  Darwin award.

Addiejames
Addiejames

THERE HAS TO BE A LOT MORE TO THIS STORY ,DO YOU DARE DRIVE THE FREEWAY ALONE ? THIS IS ONE SCARY STORY ,SOUND LIKE A SHUT UP CASE .

CJ
CJ

If CP had read the story from the Star Tribune on Saturday - they would have learned she was going 90+ miles an hour that was the reason for the traffic stop. Also there was a history of mental illness and she had expressed concerns to a local police department earlier this spring about hurting people. And I'm sure the officer ordered her to drop the weapon several times before she was shot.

David K
David K

its a liberal thing......... not uncommon.

Dustin
Dustin

 Very weird, I posted damn near the same thing then started to read the other comments.

Commenter
Commenter

You don't shoot people for speeding, being mentally unstable or concerns expressed 6 .months earlier.  Being "in possession of a handgun" is legal term of art (taken from the Golden Valley PD written statement)- meaning that it is in your care custody or control.  An example would be locked in your glove compartment.  So far there is no evidcence that she did anything with the gun,  Neither you nor I can be certain anyting except that "gameing" words are being used rather than open honest disclosure to the public.  So all you honest government officials playing games.  Did she have the gun in her hand and threaten the cop?  Or did he shoot a crazy acting woman because he got nervous.?  Step up and tell us and release the dash cam video and the traffic cam video.

guest
guest

You don't just show a police officer your gun when you are fleeing at 90/hr.  And police aren't going to sit and wait to see if she's going to shoot them. They are going to take immediate action.

E6 on leave
E6 on leave

I am very happy that further information hasn't been released.  Investigations take time.  Witnesses--including the officer--have to be interviewed.  Evidence has to be gathered and analyzed.  Unlike the CSI shows people watch on TV those things don't happen in 43 minutes (one hour minus commercials.)  Typically, witness interviews do not happen immediately after the event.  Police officers have the right to have counsel present when they gice statements--otherwise their statements can not be used against them in court IF they did something wrong.

'In posession of a handgun' isn't a "gameing" [sic] term, it is a term that indicates that whomever is making press releases isn't assuming facts that have not yet been determined.

As a citizen that is concerned whenever a sworn officer takes a life, I am relieved that the agencies involved are taking the time to do a proper investigation and are not issuing "open honest disclosure" until the investigation has been concluded. 

Zeroisanumber
Zeroisanumber

I wouldn't expect a Golden Valley cop to shoot a middle-aged woman without provocation, and I don't expect that the footage would be released before an investigation is concluded.

Still, stranger things have happened, which is why there will be an investigation in the first place.

westsidebob
westsidebob

Sorry, this story is full of holes and demands some sort of explanation.

David K
David K

good luck ever finding out the truth ........

Commenter
Commenter

"The lone occupant of the vehicle, an adult female, was in possession of a handgun and was subsequently fatally shot by the officer," Carlson's statement said. "The officer did not sustain any injuries."  This is the Official Police statement.  It is legal rubbish.  To use lethal force a police officer must be in (reasonable) fear of immediate grevious bodily harm or death.  You don't "subsequently" shoot someone because the earlier possessed a handgun. It is a statement that evades addressing the legal standard for letal force.  "Subsequently" should never be used in this situation - the fear of harm or death must be immediate.  If it is a PR person making a cautious press release, as you suggest,  it is the worst possible representation this officer could have.   E6 - you sound like a PR cop from the department.  Traditionally, an officer is given 24 hours and legal counsel before making a formal statement.  The videotape (dash cam) is immediate.  The facts are known - not developing.   I sure hope the woman wasn't "subsequently" shot after exiting her vehicle without the gun.  In any case, I believe that the Officer's head and morals were in the right place.  This is either a tragedy that was justified as necessary self defense, or a error in the stress of a street confrontation that resuled in a tragedy for all.  My heart goes out to woman's family and to the Officer and his family as well.  All of them will suffer for years to come.   Time will tell - Weasel words or cautious statements.  If the gun was in the car when she was "subsequently" shot outside then it is weasel words.  If the dash cam tape "fails" to work then it is worse.   In any case the statement is unusual and the Officer and department would be better served by transparancy and disclosure of the officer's own reason he used letal force.    

Cvonberge
Cvonberge

GV Cops are known to be overzealous, as well as SLP police.

Zeroisanumber
Zeroisanumber

There are legal considerations that both the city and the cop need to take into account before releasing any information on exactly what happened. No one wants to get sued, and assuming that the cop acted correctly he doesn't want to lose his job.

Give it a few weeks, the story will come out.

Commenter
Commenter

I don't expect anyone (much less a police officer), to shoot anyone, unless they are in immediate fear of their own life, or need to protect the life of another.   Nobody does this for fun.  Even if it absolutely necessary it still wrecks your life.   I do expect Police Officer to step up and say "I was in fear of my life - she pointed a gun at me."  Or. any other variant of the truth, instead of gaming statements and silence..  "Investigation" - baloney - There was a cop standing right there and a video dash camera.  This is not Indiana Jones looking for some lost treasuer.  So tell us what in the cop's words what saw, why he was afraid for his life and why he fired.  That is the only relevant information.  All the rest is spin and makes the Pd look like they are trying to hide something and may be giving a good cop a bad name.  

Now Trending

Minnesota Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...