Minneapolis police murder Black man during no-knock raid, had wrong guy the entire time

[sidis 9,832]

3 hours ago, crash_davis said:

i just can't take anything serious from a dude who willingly chose 4doorsMoreWhores as his Surly name. i'm thinking some 18 year old dude who lives with his divorced mom.

 

2 hours ago, crash_davis said:

i'm laughing that i just got negged by morewhores. dude don't get mad at me, you're the guy who chose that name.

 

 

[WBT 20,672]

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

If they're culpable, they would be more vested I'd think

They're culpable to the voters, either directly or through the elected officials that appoint them.  Voters don't give a shit.

[Brisketexan 105,438]

11 minutes ago, nineliveslost said:

My 2 cents 

we dont need less cops, we need a purge in the police force and a federal mandate of education and training with the entire police in the country. And yes, I don't mind if our (my) taxes pay for it. Element draconian laws and cut the heavy-handed enforcement over pot and stupid petty crimes. Create an environment of protect and serve, but also enact prison reform. Send violent criminals to prison.  

Cool.

Tell me how you're going to get the police to accept any of that when their sacrosanct, inviolable attitude is "fuck you, peasant, submit and comply.  And any of you fellow cops step outta line, we'll drum you out?"

There is no reforming American law enforcement.  It is so permeated with this attitude that it is irredeemable.  There is no good answer.  The only way to get rid of the poison that permeates all of law enforcement....is to get rid of law enforcement and completely start over from a blank slate.  But that's a shitty answer, because we need law enforcement in the interim. And they KNOW that....so they have no incentive to reform, because "fuck you -- wadda ya gonna do when we're gone?"

American law enforcement now completely sees themselves as an occupying military force, and we are the hostile civilian population that has to be kept in line, by any means they see fit. 

[52-80 19,263]

So everybody is in unanimous agreement that police should never have been there in that manner, that no-knock is unjustified. The act of shooting was a response to the showing of the gun (not bare hands, not a still-sleeping subject, etc).

The catalyst (and culpability) was clear. 

But theres still the occasional comments about if he was white instead; because he was black… etc. 

Race obsessed much?

[Brisketexan 105,438]

Just now, 52-80 said:

So everybody is in unanimous agreement that police should never have been there in that manner, that no-knock is unjustified. The act of shooting was a response to the showing of the gun (not bare hands, not a still-sleeping subject, etc).

The catalyst (and culpability) was clear. 

But theres still the occasional comments about if he was white instead; because he was black… etc. 

Race obsessed much?

I have no idea how much of a factor race may have been, if at all.

But an important thing to look at wouldn't be the individual who was shot -- it would be to look at the community/area where it happened.  If this neighborhood was heavily minority, the contempt for minorities may well be baked in.

We all damned well know that if the cops have to get a warrant to arrest someone in a NW Hils type neighborhood, they'll almost certainly get a regular one, and peacefully arrest the suspect.  If they have to get a warrant to arrest someone in a darker-pigmented neighborhood, the odds of a SWAT-style raid go way up.

And no, there's no easy way to measure this.  But based on all you've seen from American law enforcement over the past century, you know the odds are higher that they go in jacked up and ready to fight in the darker neighborhood than the whiter one.

But in the end, let's be clear -- minorities are just the people they hold in the MOST contempt.  They have no use for the rest of you, either.  You are ALL beneath them, and best submit and comply when it comes down to it.  

[MissingInAction 25,204]

6 hours ago, Fondren & Main said:

Why do we have these no knock raids?  People gotta leave their place sometime.  Wouldn’t it be easier to grab them leaving a whataburger or something?

Cops are absolute cowards. That's why.

[4doorsMoreWhores 107]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Cool.

Tell me how you're going to get the police to accept any of that when their sacrosanct, inviolable attitude is "fuck you, peasant, submit and comply.  And any of you fellow cops step outta line, we'll drum you out?"

There is no reforming American law enforcement.  It is so permeated with this attitude that it is irredeemable.  There is no good answer.  The only way to get rid of the poison that permeates all of law enforcement....is to get rid of law enforcement and completely start over from a blank slate.  But that's a shitty answer, because we need law enforcement in the interim. And they KNOW that....so they have no incentive to reform, because "fuck you -- wadda ya gonna do when we're gone?"

American law enforcement now completely sees themselves as an occupying military force, and we are the hostile civilian population that has to be kept in line, by any means they see fit. 

He said purge the police force 

[gmr548 16,617]

Fuck the police.

FIFY. Most dangerous armed gangs in America.

[Brisketexan 105,438]

He said purge the police force 

Cool. Nice concept.

HOW?

Y’all are looking at a punch bowl that is functionally all tires with a splash of punch, and saying “all ya gotta do is fish out the turds.” Shit, you’re looking at a body riddled with the most metastasized cancer ever seen, and saying “just cut out the cancer.” HOW?

Answer: it can’t be done.

[crash_davis 23,115]

27 minutes ago, sidis said:

 

 

 

i had no idea the name came from this idiot. it all makes sense. 

i have no idea if our version of morewhore took this name in homage of the og idiot or is mocking the og idiot. if it's the first, fuck him. if it's the latter, then it's fucking genius and i owe him an apology.

[4doorsMoreWhores 107]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Cool. Nice concept.

HOW?

Y’all are looking at a punch bowl that is functionally all tires with a splash of punch, and saying “all ya gotta do is fish out the turds.” Shit, you’re looking at a body riddled with the most metastasized cancer ever seen, and saying “just cut out the cancer.” HOW?

Answer: it can’t be done.

Why don't you work on figuring that out? I was simply pointing out that he offered the same solution that you did

[52-80 19,263]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I have no idea how much of a factor race may have been, if at all.

But an important thing to look at wouldn't be the individual who was shot -- it would be to look at the community/area where it happened.  If this neighborhood was heavily minority, the contempt for minorities may well be baked in.

We all damned well know that if the cops have to get a warrant to arrest someone in a NW Hils type neighborhood, they'll almost certainly get a regular one, and peacefully arrest the suspect.  If they have to get a warrant to arrest someone in a darker-pigmented neighborhood, the odds of a SWAT-style raid go way up.

And no, there's no easy way to measure this.  But based on all you've seen from American law enforcement over the past century, you know the odds are higher that they go in jacked up and ready to fight in the darker neighborhood than the whiter one.

Given that nothing is known or exposed here about the nature of the warrant (the target, their history, etc)…. 

Youre hypothesizing a crime kingpin with armed guards living in a posh neighborhood wouldnt get the full SWAT treatment?  Or someone wanted for grand theft auto will have their doors busted down by mere fact of living in Houston’s Fifth Ward. 

Like, its not plausible or contemplatable to you the correlation of incidence and severity of crime to economic and neighorboods?  

“I dont know if race was a factor…and theres no easy way to measure this….[but basically law enforcement is racist]”

Some great race-blind presumptions and bias from modern progressives. Im very impressed. Fantastic way to promote race relations is to assume everything is racially-motivated.

[sidis 9,832]

11 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

i had no idea the name came from this idiot. it all makes sense. 

i have no idea if our version of morewhore took this name in homage of the og idiot or is mocking the og idiot. if it's the first, fuck him. if it's the latter, then it's fucking genius and i owe him an apology.

given his posting and repping history including that he was the lone pos rep on Harrison Bergen’s post calling rep. omar an incestual terrorist, I am going with homage. 

but I guess I gave you too much credit given that rittnenhouse was about that age and living in his white trash mom’s basement.

Edited February 5, 2022 by sidis

[Brisketexan 105,438]

Why don't you work on figuring that out? I was simply pointing out that he offered the same solution that you did

Actually, if you read my responses, my point is that there is no solution. They can’t be purged. And we have to have some sort of law enforcement. The cancer has consumed us,

[4doorsMoreWhores 107]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Actually, if you read my responses, my point is that there is no solution. They can’t be purged. And we have to have some sort of law enforcement. The cancer has consumed us,

Obviously 

[Foosters 17,889]

Its utterly fascinating that despite seemingly agreeing on all points, we're still arguing about . . . what is it we're arguing about here?

[sidis 9,832]

9 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Its utterly fascinating that despite seemingly agreeing on all points, we're still arguing about . . . what is it we're arguing about here?

My read is that 52-80 said the police were justified in the moment to kill a guy because he was sleeping with a gun. Someone passive aggresively said they thought gun ownership at home made them safer. A guy that loves that Kyle rittenhouse shot some people asked why he said that while playing dumb and then said are you saying that the police shot him because he had a gun? I said that seems to be the police and 52-80’s position which would bolster said passive aggression and there was obvious irony of legal gun owning person now dead because he had a gun at home. Some people pointed out victim was black and 52-80 didn’t care for that. Everyone seems to think no knock warrants are generally a bad idea and lead to unnecessarily tense situations that lead to unnecessary lethality. Some people don’t understand what defund police means. That’s about all I got. 

Oh, and crash unintentionally demonstrated phenomenal perceptive ability.  

Edited February 5, 2022 by sidis

[TexasEd 8,077]

Yeah the argument comes in on whether the sleeping person having a gun made the shoot justified even if they were at the wrong house.  They are looking for the smallest technical out for victim blaming.

 

This is how I understand the steps:

1. No Knock warrant was not justified (St Paul asked them to use regular?) - Unanimous
2. Victim had right to own gun and self defense - Unanimous
3. Police were justified in shooting because they saw a gun and had to get home to their family even though they shouldn't have kicked in the door - One guy 
4. Ipso facto legally owning a gun lead to his death - one guy 

 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12,301]

49 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

So everybody is in unanimous agreement that police should never have been there in that manner, that no-knock is unjustified. The act of shooting was a response to the showing of the gun (not bare hands, not a still-sleeping subject, etc).

The catalyst (and culpability) was clear. 

But theres still the occasional comments about if he was white instead; because he was black… etc. 

Race obsessed much?

Not one person here made that comment. Maybe you’re race obsessed…much?

[crash_davis 23,115]

36 minutes ago, sidis said:

given his posting and repping history including that he was the lone pos rep on Harrison Bergen’s post calling rep. omar an incestual terrorist, I am going with homage. 

but I guess I gave you too much credit given that rittnenhouse was about that age and living in his white trash mom’s basement.

 

20 minutes ago, sidis said:

My read is that 52-80 said the police were justified in the moment to kill a guy because he was sleeping with a gun. Someone passive aggresively said they thought gun ownership at home made them safer. A guy that loves that Kyle rittenhouse shot some people asked why he said that while playing dumb and then said are you saying that the police shot him because he had a gun? I said that seems to be the police and 52-80’s position which would bolster said passive aggression and there was obvious irony of legal gun owning person now dead because he had a gun at home. Some people pointed out victim was black and 52-80 didn’t care for that. Everyone seems to think no knock warrants are generally a bad idea and lead to unnecessarily tense situations that lead to unnecessary lethality. Some people don’t understand what defund police means. That’s about all I got. 

Oh, and crash unintentionally demonstrated phenomenal perceptive ability.  

i seriously had no clue about any of that shit about rittenhouse. i just thought someone who post on a utexas board with that name has to be an immature 18 year old-ish idiot. funny that i was correct on both accounts.

Edited February 5, 2022 by crash_davis

[52-80 19,263]

10 minutes ago, sidis said:

My read is that 52-80 said the police were justified in the moment to kill a guy because he was sleeping with a gun. Someone passive aggresively said they thought gun ownership at home made them safer. A guy that loves that Kyle rittenhouse shot some people asked why he said that while playing dumb and then said are you saying that the police shot him because he had a gun? I said that seems to be the police and 52-80’s position which would bolster said passive aggression and there was obvious irony of legal gun owning person now dead because he had a gun at home. Some people pointed out victim was black and 52-80 didn’t care for that. Everyone seems to think no knock warrants are generally a bad idea and lead to unnecessarily tense situations that lead to unnecessary lethality. Some people don’t understand what defund police means. That’s about all I got. 

Oh, and crash unintentionally demonstrated phenomenal perceptive ability.  

Ive already said this like 5 times so its impossible to read ambiguity from it:

The police were right to shoot *in response* to a gun brandished in hand (no, he wasnt sleeping still), in the presumed context of a dangerous encounter. 

The police were not right to have put themselves in this dangerous encounter (unless strongly proven otherwise) - which is all a consequence of no-knock warrant. 

At the moment, they are wholly wrong. 

If it is found that the no-knock warrant was not justified, those in the command chain and those authorized it should be most culpable. 

So it has nothing to do with officers being out for blood; the race of dude; the legality of his owning the gun; theres been zero insinuation on his character …despite some people clearly wanting that to be true to fulfill their race war fantasies

[Pato del Muerto 52,616]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

There are very rare occasions when they should be used.  Probably less than 1 percent of the rate they are used now.

You going after El Chapo types who are loaded up with M-4s and RPGs, a no knock is the way to go.

Or some serial killer type with innocent people around.

Or some foreign or domestic terrorist with a lot of explosives.

Only if it is needed to save lives and there is no alternative.  Don't care if evidence is destroyed.  That should not be a justification.

My suspicion is cops will write requests up to fit whatever guidelines are created, no matter how narrow.  But let’s give it a shot anyway. I think having the approvals attach culpability of some sort would help get the proper level of scrutiny on these requests. 

[52-80 19,263]

5 hours ago, Helobious said:

. He was a white guy though, probably helped.

2 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

Note to self.  Don't be a black man in Minneapolis.

 

18 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Not one person here made that comment. Maybe you’re race obsessed…much?

Sure. 

[sidis 9,832]

8 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Ive already said this like 5 times so its impossible to read ambiguity from it:

The police were right to shoot *in response* to a gun brandished in hand (no, he wasnt sleeping still), in the presumed context of a dangerous encounter. 

This gives rise the very obvious question…is someone at home that is startled by an intruder justified to brandish a weapon at the intruder? That’s the conversation that the anti gun nuts want the gun nuts to acknowledge. Overweight old guy shoots people fleeing neighbor’s house in Houston is fine. But having a gun in your hand when people bust into your home unannounced is a death sentence? 

Race war fantasies huh? Mmkay. 

[52-80 19,263]

If the not-targeted guy had actually shot at the police (and miraculously lived), he should be absolved for it. 
As it is, the police shot at him in response to seeing a gun wielded, in a situation where they anticipated forceful encounter. 
Their motivation was not to shoot a sleeping person, or an unarmed person, or be involved with anyone not the subject. That he was caught up is unintentioned and unfortunate, and not his fault. 
 

But it seems nuance is hard. 

[TwiceHorn 31,554]

3 minutes ago, sidis said:

This gives rise the very obvious question…is someone at home that is startled by an intruder justified to brandish a weapon at the intruder? That’s the conversation that the anti gun nuts want the gun nuts to acknowledge. Overweight old guy shoots people fleeing neighbor’s house in Houston is fine. But having a gun in your hand when people bust into your home unannounced is a death sentence? 

Race war fantasies huh? Mmkay. 

Under the self-defense laws of Texas, and most states, the civilian has the right to brandish and shoot at an intruder, as long as the use of force or threatened force is reasonable.  So, in the cop context, until it becomes known or should have become known to the civilian tht the intruder was a cop.

Those kind of laws don't apply to cops on duty in the heat of the moment.  They just get a vague, broad, and pretty deferential reasonableness applied to their action.

[52-80 19,263]

3 minutes ago, sidis said:

This gives rise the very obvious question…is someone at home that is startled by an intruder justified to brandish a weapon at the intruder?

Answer is very obvious yes. Absolutely.

 

Quote

But having a gun in your hand when people bust into your home unannounced is a death sentence

Says who?

You *should* not get killed for it.  But when police have guns drawned looking for someone dangerous and you flash one at them, you likely *will* get killed for that. 

Are those 2 things incompatible or morally/logically outrageous?

[Pato del Muerto 52,616]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Under the self-defense laws of Texas, and most states, the civilian has the right to brandish and shoot at an intruder, as long as the use of force or threatened force is reasonable.  So, in the cop context, until it becomes known or should have become known to the civilian tht the intruder was a cop.

Those kind of laws don't apply to cops on duty in the heat of the moment.  They just get a vague, broad, and pretty deferential reasonableness applied to their action.

Is the common interpretation that a cop saying “police” as they enter enough to say the civilian knew it should have known it was the cops?  Even if it happens simultaneous to or right after the noise of a door being broken down and at an unverifiable volume and the level of consciousness of the civilian is unknown (or likely asleep for these late night ones) at the time of entry?

[sidis 9,832]

3 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Answer is very obvious yes. Absolutely.

 

Says who?

You *should* not get killed for it.  But when police have guns drawned looking for someone dangerous and you flash one at them, you likely *will* get killed for that. 

Are those 2 things incompatible or morally/logically outrageous?

When the police bust into your home unannounced with guns drawn? Absolutely.

[52-80 19,263]

1 minute ago, sidis said:

When the police bust into your home unannounced with guns drawn? Absolutely.

Sure. N.K.W. is nonsense. Police had no business going in like that. I expressed that in literally the first response in the thread. 
 

whats the prob here ?

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12,301]

@52-80 sure is punchy. You want some fisticuffs hombre?

[52-80 19,263]

3 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

@52-80 sure is punchy. You want some fisticuffs hombre?

Careful what you ask for. Im pre-JROTC

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12,301]

Those guys were always battle hardened from having to beat the pussy off with a stick.

[Ag with kids 581]

40 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

 

Sure. 

FWIW...My comment was tongue in cheek based on the history of Minneapolis...

I'm quite sure the GUN was a bigger reason for them shooting him than his race.

HOWEVER, no knock raids are complete and utter bullshit and THIS is a horrible example of why...

[52-80 19,263]

2 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

FWIW...My comment was tongue in cheek based on the history of Minneapolis...

I'm quite sure the GUN was a bigger reason for them shooting him than his race.

HOWEVER, no knock raids are complete and utter bullshit and THIS is a horrible example of why...

Unless theyre looking for Chris fucking Dorner, its bogus. Hell, even the judge should catch flak for it. Curious if/when details of it comes out. 

[WBT 20,672]

The city on fire yet?

[Hook1997 5,404]

How do you do surveillance on a place before a no-knock warrant and get the wrong place??  I think there are very few situations where a no-knock might be needed still but it’s definitely being overused and abused.  

[Anastasis 23,491]

What is the fascination with the 5.7?

[Anastasis 23,491]

9 minutes ago, Hook1997 said:

How do you do surveillance on a place before a no-knock warrant and get the wrong place??

You are not dealing with brain geniuses here.

 

[Anastasis 23,491]

Disarm the police. 

Perhaps extreme as a starting point. But we can incrementally let them earn back their trust. 

Or at least maybe we start by taking away their MRAPs. And their no knock bullshit. And any number of other things.

  

[TexasEd 8,077]

24 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What is the fascination with the 5.7?

Rare and expensive gun and the cartridge has armor defeating properties 

[atomheartbevo 89,824]

4 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

You going after El Chapo types who are loaded up with M-4s and RPGs, a no knock is the way to go.

Or some serial killer type with innocent people around.

Or some foreign or domestic terrorist with a lot of explosives.

Only if it is needed to save lives and there is no alternative.  Don't care if evidence is destroyed.  That should not be a justification.

I would think getting them away from their guns/RPGs/explosives/innocent people would be the way to go, such as waiting for them to leave the house.

Way too many of these situations are happening in cheap-ass apartments/houses where people do frequently leave - these aren't happening at some large mansion/prepper's compound where the bad guy can hole up without leaving for long periods of time.

Its like the David Koresh situation - they had ample opportunity to nab him on one of his trips into town.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

42 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What is the fascination with the 5.7?

It’s my favorite.  Have a couple of them.  

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I would think getting them away from their guns/RPGs/explosives/innocent people would be the way to go, such as waiting for them to leave the house.

Way too many of these situations are happening in cheap-ass apartments/houses where people do frequently leave - these aren't happening at some large mansion/prepper's compound where the bad guy can hole up without leaving for long periods of time.

Its like the David Koresh situation - they had ample opportunity to nab him on one of his trips into town.

I don’t disagree.  I’m saying when there’s no other option.  It should be exceedingly rare.  

[Anastasis 23,491]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

It’s my favorite.  Have a couple of them.  

How many couches do you camp out on?

The 5.7 is an expensive round shot by expensive guns. Maybe just seems an odd place for one to fall out of the couch. 

[Dahobbs 17,692]

5 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

No knock raids are fundamentally problematic and should be per se illegal. Change my mind. 

I don't wanna. 

2 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Answer is very obvious yes. Absolutely.

 

Says who?

You *should* not get killed for it.  But when police have guns drawned looking for someone dangerous and you flash one at them, you likely *will* get killed for that. 

Are those 2 things incompatible or morally/logically outrageous?

I think you're cutting things too finely. Yes, if you remove all context from the situation and just say some guy brandished a gun at the cops, you could say the cops were justified in shooting. But that isn't how reality works. The context is important for making any sense of the situation. Separating it out it is a completely pointless exercise in my view.

Here, the cops were wrong because (1) no knock warrants are fundamentally broken and put the untrained, unaware citizen who the cops have a civic responsibility to, in a position to exercise perfect judgment or die, (2) the cops put themselves before the citizen, choosing to end his life despite having superior numbers, training, and preparation for this encounter, and (3) for apparently going to wrong damn apartment. No element of this shooting was justified, practically, morally or, in my view, legally. 

[The Ace of Aces 5,194]

Cops murdered an innocent black man for absolutely zero reason? I. Am. Shocked!

 

[mchookem 16,408]

5 hours ago, 4doorsMoreWhores said:

If not for a few, it could be possible. This discussion need not have anything to do with politics. 

Question: is there no hope he can successfully appeal the conviction? Seems like it's pretty clear his perception was that the house was being invaded and he was defending himself.

 

5 hours ago, Porterhouse said:

That’s an unbelievable story and while he clearly did some dumbass things his life doesn’t deserve to be ruined over it. So he shot an officer, but didn’t kill him?  Yes, certainly a senseless NNR. 

the officer didn't die, but he has certainly had sympathy-evoking and life-altering difficulties...and i blame APD for his circumstances as much as the boy who shot him.

and yes, they are under appeal...but he was given two years time served (that's how long it took to come to trial) so he will very likely be up for parole before his appeal works through the system. 

btw...this was his attorney:

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/2021/12/16/jurors-award-family-67-million-after-austin-police-kill-landon-nobles/8916731002/

[bluto 4,943]

Trying to imagine what the invading army’s battle report would read like if cameras weren’t recording. 

[fattyflattie 4,638]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

How many couches do you camp out on?

The 5.7 is an expensive round shot by expensive guns. Maybe just seems an odd place for one to fall out of the couch. 

Ruger recently made them much, much more affordable. If you want a known armor piercing round, that’s the one. Which is probably going to come up at some point when they start to assassinate his character. It jumped right off the page when I first saw the story.