Minneapolis Cop Murders A Black Man

[52-80 19079]

1 hour ago, hornmpa96 said:

This was a series of terrible decisions on everyone’s part. The decision to drive drunk, the decision to resist and take the taser. Also, the decision to chase after him and shoot him appear piss poor to me.

When he takes the taser and runs, what was the purpose of the chase? They have his license information and could have towed his car, filed their reports and had him arrested later when he was sober.

if the decision to shoot him is inline with police training, the training needs to be changed. The threat of him driving drunk was already dealt with. They are making life and death decisions when they unholster their weapon and based on this video, I don’t think this officer should be trusted making those decisions.

What about the resisting arrest, and taking of police weapon, and evading arrest... so 4 crimes in succession, each anywhere from misdemeanor to felony... should they just let him run away and sleep it off?

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

7 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Glad you don’t assault them and steal their weapon. Apples to apples and all

Back up for a second and let’s examine my current exchange with noted scholar, @John Lawrence.

me: any other country and no one dies there. We are violent.

noted scholar: all the more reason not to do what he did. (Point he is making: a violent deterrent should be preventing these things from happening)

me: well it’s not. (I could spend time finding any number of data points proving this out, but noted scholar @John Lawrence has Fox News Mush Brain, so nah.)

noted scholar: well it should.

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

7 minutes ago, BigHorn'13 said:

Yeah but you didn't kick his and his partner's asses and take one of their non lethal weapons resulting in hurt feelings. Shoot, you were probably just a good ol boy that just got uncharacteristically scared .

That, apparently, makes all the difference.

ETA aaaaand like fucking clockwork. 

Yes clockwork. Let’s completely ignore relevant factors that get in the way of my selective outrage. 

[hornmpa96 2598]

1 minute ago, 52-80 said:

What about the resisting arrest, and taking of police weapon, and evading arrest... so 4 crimes in succession, each anywhere from misdemeanor to felony... should they just let him run away and sleep it off?

Was it worth his life? Obviously, my answer is yes. 

[Genco 3038]

2 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

What about the resisting arrest, and taking of police weapon, and evading arrest... so 4 crimes in succession, each anywhere from misdemeanor to felony... should they just let him run away and sleep it off?

Which one of those is the capitol offense?

[BigHorn'13 3352]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think this can be a huge factor in things like this, and long chases.  The cops get somewhat understandably pissed and take it out on the guy.  While that is somewhat understandable, it's also something they should be trained not to do and if they do it, they should be relieved of responsibility.

Bingo. If one of these posters defending the cops had asked me point blank if I thought cops were supposed to be robots without emotion, I would've said of course not. 

It's the inability to recognize, and then justify, those same emotions directing actions that shouldn't be taken that I'm arguing against. 

[BigHorn'13 3352]

5 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Yes clockwork. Let’s completely ignore relevant factors that get in the way of my selective outrage. 

The point of the matter is someone died (I'd say murdered but know that'll cause more contention.) 

Did the cop have to kill him?

I don't believe he should have.

[John Lawrence 244]

57 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

How is that working out for us?

Works well for pretty much everyone not committing aggravated assault against cops.  With a few exceptions like Floyd, Castile, Rice, etc.  A handful a year in a country of 350 million.

Let me guess, you think Michael Brown was murdered?

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

4 minutes ago, John Lawrence said:

Works well for pretty much everyone not committing aggravated assault against cops.  With a few exceptions like Floyd, Castile, Rice, etc.  A handful a year in a country of 350 million.

Let me guess, you think Michael Brown was murdered?

here's some of the facts you'll completely reject:

 

 

 

 

again, going back to this statement you made:

Quote

All the more reason not to commit aggravated assault against someone who is armed.

i'm not sure if you have the mental capacity to recognize it, but the overarching point this statement is designed to make is this: 

the threat of a violent response should act as a deterrent.

the fact is this: it doesn't. period.

but instead of having the intellectual capacity to question your engrained belief structure (thanks Fox News!) and the intellectual honesty to explore ideas that might run counter to your engrained belief structure (thanks Fox News!), you'll completely dismiss any facts or stats that don't fit your pea brain's narrative and call it Fake News (thanks Fox News!). 

[52-80 19079]

46 minutes ago, Genco said:

Which one of those is the capitol offense?

whats the response to someone whos forceful and violent, who took your weapon, and brandished it against you? 

 

beat him on the toe with a billy club?

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

What are the Parameters  for theses studies?  Are we comparing between the same levels of offenses?  If the suspect was armed?  If the suspect resisted arrest?  
It appears they are comparing total population numbers for these graphs instead of using the total number of criminal actions committed and then comparing by race.  Stands to reason more crimes committed would lead to more interactions with the police  especially in regards to violent crime and homicide statistics.

Like both of your stats, context is missing. 

Edited June 14, 2020 by ChickenSandwich

[scottsins 1953]

Had they had a chance to pat him down and know whether he had other arms?  I am not sure.  I have just seen the Wendy's video where he turns and points something at them.

Yeah. You see him point a bright yellow taser.

[scottsins 1953]

Being tazed in that situation could pretty easily lead to death or serious bodily injury.  I have seen people tazed have their arms drop to their sides and drop like a rock.  On pavement that is extremely dangerous.  Or the suspect could grab the gun which will be dropped when he is tazed and use it.
The guy is dead because he made a series of very bad choices.
I am also betting there is more than alcohol on his tox screen.

So tasers should be classified and treated as deadly force? So cops should only use them when confronted with deadly force? They shouldn’t use them to subdue unarmed fleeing/resisting individuals?

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

1 minute ago, ChickenSandwich said:

What are the Parameters  for theses studies?  Are we comparing between the same levels of offenses?  If the suspect was armed?  If the suspect resisted arrest?  
 

Like both of your stats, context is missing. 

find any statistical context you can that disproves my original statement regarding our culture of violence. 

[Anastasis 23392]

9 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

here's some of the facts you'll completely reject:

 

These charts are racist. 

 

When it comes to police murdering citizens we need to be compared to third world shithole countries, not fucking scandanavia and oceania. 

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

NHWC

I’m not trying. You are trying to simplify your stance as a race based outcome while ignoring other variables. 
 

It’s just “black and white” for you. 

Edited June 14, 2020 by ChickenSandwich

[XYZ 2154]

3 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

here's some of the facts you'll completely reject:

 

 

 

 

again, going back to this statement you made:

i'm not sure if you have the mental capacity to recognize it, but the overarching point this statement is designed to make is this: 

the threat of a violent response should act as a deterrent.

the fact is this: it doesn't. period.

but instead of having the intellectual capacity to question your engrained belief structure (thanks Fox News!) and the intellectual honesty to explore ideas that might run counter to your engrained belief structure (thanks Fox News!), you'll completely dismiss any facts or stats that don't fit your pea brain's narrative and call it Fake News (thanks Fox News!). 

Why do you bother presenting facts about police brutality? Let’s face it, America has a lot of John Lawrences, law abiding don’t start no shit won’t be no shit, get off my lawn type. These people do not care about some marginalized inner city person who gets shot dead while trying to evade arrest. What they care about is that their person and property is kept safe from such miscreants by the police. Every low life plugged by the police is one fewer low life who could possibly harm them.

[John Lawrence 244]

4 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

here's some of the facts you'll completely reject:

 

 

 

 

again, going back to this statement you made:

i'm not sure if you have the mental capacity to recognize it, but the overarching point this statement is designed to make is this: 

the threat of a violent response should act as a deterrent.

the fact is this: it doesn't. period.

but instead of having the intellectual capacity to question your engrained belief structure (thanks Fox News!) and the intellectual honesty to explore ideas that might run counter to your engrained belief structure (thanks Fox News!), you'll completely dismiss any facts or stats that don't fit your pea brain's narrative and call it Fake News (thanks Fox News!). 

Those countries do not have guns like we do nor do they have our demographics.  If you want to talk about confiscating guns, we can have that talk. I don't see how it is done.  But a cop in Sweden and Germany is not facing what our cops face.  I don't want our cops wearing tact gear and whipping out machine guns.  I want drugs legalized and think it will cure a whole lot of this.  But patrolling East St. Louis isn't the same is patrolling Munich, The Hague, or Zurich.

And use of force stats by race are meaningless.  Males make up 95% of police shootings.  Does that mean cops are sexist against males?  Or maybe, and I am just spit balling here, males are more likely to resist, point a gun at, and assault cops?

60 year olds don't have force used against them at the rate 18 year olds do either.  It isn't due to age discrimination.

 

 

 

[John Lawrence 244]

8 minutes ago, scottsins said:

So tasers should be classified and treated as deadly force? So cops should only use them when confronted with deadly force? They shouldn’t use them to subdue unarmed fleeing/resisting individuals?

If someone points a taser at you and threatens to shoot you with it and you are armed, do you think you have the right to shoot them to stop them from doing so?

And what is the charge under Texas law for walking up to someone and tazing them?

Edited June 14, 2020 by John Lawrence

[John Lawrence 244]

10 minutes ago, scottsins said:

So tasers should be classified and treated as deadly force? So cops should only use them when confronted with deadly force? They shouldn’t use them to subdue unarmed fleeing/resisting individuals?

Cops should use them if they have a reasonable fear of serious bodily injury.  It is less lethal force.  I think they use them too often, actually.  This was not one of those cases.  Cops are armed with pistols.  If a suspect is wrestling on the ground with a cop, that gets me there and a taser is justified.  Because a suspect willing to do that risks disarming and shooting the cop.

I have also seen cops taze people just for talking shit and refusing to comply with orders.  That is not appropriate.

[52-80 19079]

12 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

here's some of the facts you'll completely reject:

 

 

 

This is death per population, which is valid if you assume all populations are the same, and all the police encounters are equally risky.... which they're obviously not.

So how about we scale the numbers to proxies of risk/threat/violence : (1) firearm-related homicide rate (2) intentional homicide rate

(source:  UN office on drugs and crimes; all numbers are rates, so values can be compared on relative manner)

 

1. police killing / firearm homicide rates

US:  7.5

CAN: 13

AUS: 77

NL: 14

NZ: 18

GER: 21

UK:  8.3

 

2. police killing / homicide rate

US:  6.7

CAN: 5.6

AUS: 9.5

NL: 3.9

NZ: 2.6

GER: 1.7

UK: 0.4

 

seems to me, US police aren't more trigger happy, it's that that violent society breeds violent consequences... and america is pretty violent .

[52-80 19079]

19 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

What are the Parameters  for theses studies?  Are we comparing between the same levels of offenses?  If the suspect was armed?  If the suspect resisted arrest?  
It appears they are comparing total population numbers for these graphs instead of using the total number of criminal actions committed and then comparing by race.  Stands to reason more crimes committed would lead to more interactions with the police  especially in regards to violent crime and homicide statistics.

Like both of your stats, context is missing. 

done, fam

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

10 minutes ago, John Lawrence said:

Those countries do not have guns like we do nor do they have our demographics. 

"We have too many guns and poor black people."

[Genco 3038]

17 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

whats the response to someone whos forceful and violent, who took your weapon, and brandished it against you? 

 

beat him on the toe with a billy club?

Maybe chase the drunk, unarmed guy who is running away from you? Perhaps that should be the first resort rather than shooting him in the back.

[52-80 19079]

Just now, Genco said:

Maybe chase the drunk, unarmed guy who is running away from you? Perhaps that should be the first resort rather than shooting him in the back.

if only we had video evidence of this gentle man who was unarmed and nonthreatening

[MNLonghornFUKM 8799]

Maybe chase the drunk, unarmed guy who is running away from you? Perhaps that should be the first resort rather than shooting him in the back.

What if he tazes you in the nuts?

[John Lawrence 244]

8 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

"We have too many guns and poor black people."

"Patrolling Berchtesgaden is the same as New Orleans"

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

Just now, John Lawrence said:

"Patrolling Berchtesgaden is the same as New Orleans"

i mean, you agree with this statement right?

Quote

We have too many guns and poor black people.

let's see if we can find some common ground to work with here...

[scottsins 1953]

I don’t know what police are trained to do.  

 

I do know what the legal standard is for any citizen to use deadly force is.  Reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death. I 100 percent believe this shooting met that standard.  

 

Again, if someone walks up to you on the street and points a taser at you in a threatening manor, the law will justify your shooting them dead right there.  Had he not pointed the taser at them (even more it appears he shot it at them), they don’t get there on reasonable fear of SBI.  

 

Shooting a taser at someone is an attempted aggravated assault in every jurisdiction in this country.  You can use lethal force to stop an aggravated assault.  

 

From a criminal law standpoint it’s clear to me this was legal.  

This sounds like very plausible analysis, but if you throw around terms like “every jurisdiction” and “clear” from a legal standpoint”, you need to cite statutes and case law.

 

I would pick at one piece of your analysis regarding “attempted aggravated assault” though. The hypothetical you describe would just be aggravated assault (assuming a taser qualifies) and not “attempted”, under Texas law.

 

ETA: The scenario you describe would almost always be prosecuted under the deadly conduct statute, and it would not be uncommon for it to be a misdemeanor.

[52-80 19079]

5 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

i mean, you agree with this statement right?

let's see if we can find some common ground to work with here...

are there numbers to show police kill more armed blacks than armed whites?

[John Lawrence 244]

Just now, 52-80 said:

are there numbers to show police kill more armed blacks than armed whites?

 

I don't know there answer, but I have seen no one dispute this.

 

 

 

 

[Genco 3038]

11 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

if only we had video evidence of this gentle man who was unarmed and nonthreatening

Well this is going nowhere. Interesting language you chose ("violent, brandishing a weapon"). You're dug in and not of a heart and mind to be convinced of anything you don't already think so I won't argue the point any further.

If those set of circumstances put that cop in fear for his life, then he's a coward. But that's been the problem for a number of years. Police training, despite being referred to as "warrior" training, has ingrained in every cop's mindset that everything/everyone is a threat and to shoot as a first resort.

Cowards with guns.

[52-80 19079]

1 minute ago, Genco said:

Well this is going nowhere. Interesting language you chose ("violent, brandishing a weapon"). You're dug in and not of a heart and mind to be convinced of anything you don't already think so I won't argue the point any further.

If those set of circumstances put that cop in fear for his life, then he's a coward. But that's been the problem for a number of years. Police training, despite being referred to as "warrior" training, has ingrained in every cop's mindset that everything/everyone is a threat and to shoot as a first resort.

Cowards with guns.

i didnt know that wrestling with 2 people and grabbing their weapon, and later pointing it at them, disqualifies as violent or brandish.  i must borrow your dictionary one day

[Genco 3038]

You deliberately use the word weapon instead of taser to conflate it with a gun and to imply the cop was in imminent danger of deadly force from Rayshard Brooks. It wasn't, the cop knew it, he's a coward.

[John Lawrence 244]

12 minutes ago, Genco said:

Well this is going nowhere. Interesting language you chose ("violent, brandishing a weapon"). You're dug in and not of a heart and mind to be convinced of anything you don't already think so I won't argue the point any further.

If those set of circumstances put that cop in fear for his life, then he's a coward. But that's been the problem for a number of years. Police training, despite being referred to as "warrior" training, has ingrained in every cop's mindset that everything/everyone is a threat and to shoot as a first resort.

Cowards with guns.

Shooting was the fourth result.  First was talking to him.  Second was wrestling on the ground when he resisted arrest and attacked the officer.  Third was attempting to taze him.  Fourth was shooting him after he disarmed a cop with a taser, pointed it at him, and shot it at him.

These fuckers aren't John Wick.  You point and discharge a taser at an armed cop (or anyone) and get shot in return, tough fucking shit.

 

Edited June 14, 2020 by John Lawrence

[Lhorn 4885]

With regards to whether police policy justifies the use of deadly against someone attempting to tase you, I wish we had a LEO to answer that question.  But of course, why would any of them enter these shit show threads.

It wouldn't surprise me if it did, simply because if the "perp" incapacitates the officer, he might then get to his gun and kill the office or someone else.  Who knows.  J

It's unfortunate he raised his arm to shoot at the officer, because obviously that's when the cop decided to shoot.  Otherwise it's just a footrace and wrestling.  Not sure you can say at night, with poor lighting and an arm being raised to discharge a weapon which is seen by the officer on end (not the side/profile), while running  that he knew for certain it wasn't a gun.  If he had some thought that it might be a gun, I can blame him for the shoot.  

[John Lawrence 244]

7 minutes ago, Genco said:

You deliberately use the word weapon instead of taser to conflate it with a gun and to imply the cop was in imminent danger of deadly force from Rayshard Brooks. It wasn't, the cop knew it, he's a coward.

A taser is a weapon.  In fact, there have been over a 1000 deaths from tasers in this country.  Reuters tracks it since the early 2000s.  Currently sitting at 1,081.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-taser-database/

And the standard is not "imminent danger of deadly force".  Lethal force can be used if the individual has a reasonable belief it is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury.

If someone starts swinging a baseball bat at your knee, you are in no imminent danger of death.  You can still shoot their ass to stop them from doing it.

Edited June 14, 2020 by John Lawrence

[dcar00 14030]

1 hour ago, Genco said:

Which one of those is the capitol offense?

you leave the fucking buildings out of this, they hurt no one.

[dcar00 14030]

15 minutes ago, Genco said:

Well this is going nowhere. Interesting language you chose ("violent, brandishing a weapon"). You're dug in and not of a heart and mind to be convinced of anything you don't already think so I won't argue the point any further.

If those set of circumstances put that cop in fear for his life, then he's a coward. But that's been the problem for a number of years. Police training, despite being referred to as "warrior" training, has ingrained in every cop's mindset that everything/everyone is a threat and to shoot as a first resort.

Cowards with guns.

And there we have it.  cowards with guns.  the law is not the issue here.  Its we hate cops because they are shitty people who have guns.  

[52-80 19079]

7 minutes ago, Genco said:

You deliberately use the word weapon instead of taser to conflate it with a gun and to imply the cop was in imminent danger of deadly force from Rayshard Brooks. It wasn't, the cop knew it, he's a coward.

i deliberately used the word weapon because a taser is a weapon, in the way a knife, a bat, a baton, a crowbar, a gun, a replicate gun, a shard of glass, are all legitimate weapons. 

the moment you choose to come after a LEO with a weapon, you get kicked out of the pity party, and risk serious injury and death.

 

george floyd's was an injustice.  this isnt.

[seven 1366]

44 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

"We have too many guns and poor black people."

Exact same reason many give give for why universal healthcare won't work here. And these people don't think they are racist. Smdh

[John Lawrence 244]

A taser is a weapon, in the way a knife, a bat, a baton, a crowbar, a gun, a replicate gun, or a shard of glass are all legitimate weapons.

The moment you choose to come after someone with a weapon, you get kicked out of the pity party, and risk serious injury and death.

Edited June 14, 2020 by John Lawrence

[Captainant 27429]

23 minutes ago, John Lawrence said:

A taser is a weapon.  In fact, there have been over a 1000 deaths from tasers in this country.  Reuters tracks it since the early 2000s.  Currently sitting at 1,081.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-taser-database/

And the standard is not "imminent danger of deadly force".  Lethal force can be used if the individual has a reasonable belief it is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury.

If someone starts swinging a baseball bat at your knee, you are in no imminent danger of death.  You can still shoot their ass to stop them from doing it.

Wow, we should let cops know that tasers are deadly weapons and not compliance devices then. Who knew they've been using deadly force for no reason for so long???

[John Lawrence 244]

Just now, Captainant said:

Wow, we should let cops know that tasers are deadly weapons and not compliance devices then. Who knew they've been using deadly force for no reason for so long???

So is a baton.  Cops all around the world use them, even in genteel Europe.  If you attack someone with a baton and they shoot you, it is justified.  If you attack a cop with your hands and they crack you over the head with a baton, that is also justified.  If a cop cracks you over the head with a baton or tazes you for talking shit or being in contempt of cop, that is not justified.

This person attacked the cops without justification.  He was wrestling with armed officers and creating a dangerous situation.  That justified them using their tasers, as a less lethal option than shooting them.  Once he took the taser and attacked them with it, him getting shot was justified.

This is not a difficult or particularly close case.

 

[freyguy 4245]

What if he shot at the cops with rubber bullets and tear gas?  Would he deserve to die then?

[John Lawrence 244]

14 minutes ago, freyguy said:

What if he shot at the cops with rubber bullets and tear gas?  Would he deserve to die then?

Yes.  If he attacked them without justification with rubber bullets and tear gas while resisting a lawful arrest, absolutely.

And if someone shoots rubber bullets and tear gas at your without legal justification and you shoot them to stop them from doing so, it is also justified.

Edited June 14, 2020 by John Lawrence

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

58 minutes ago, seven said:

Exact same reason many give give for why universal healthcare won't work here. And these people don't think they are racist. Smdh

Got to love the CR sock stopping by with the “everyone is racist” drive by. 
 

[DigglerontheHoof 21048]

13 minutes ago, John Lawrence said:

Yes.  If he attacked them without justification with rubber bullets and tear gas while resisting a lawful arrest, absolutely.

And if someone shoots rubber bullets and tear gas at your without legal justification and you shoot them to stop them from doing so, it is also justified.

You mean like the cops have been doing to peaceful protesters?  

[52-80 19079]

I love the idea of having a law enforcement being handicapped to force equalization.

 

If a guy is fighty, you call in the precinct's best boxer.

If guy is wielding a knife, find you a Filipino sergeant who was trained in Kali.

If they're holding a hostage at gunpoint, you take their mothers and hold them at gunpoint until the criminals capitulate.

[52-80 19079]

If someone breaks into your house at night, cops are only allowed to pelt them with rocks -- who knows, perps might be unarmed and it would be unfair to use more force otherwise.