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

[Captainant 27,826]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

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. 

TFW the mag full of ammo is worth nearly as much as the gun, or has 5.7 finally stopped being a unicorn round? I always wanted one but just didn't make sense

[fattyflattie 4,638]

26 minutes ago, Captainant said:

TFW the mag full of ammo is worth nearly as much as the gun, or has 5.7 finally stopped being a unicorn round? I always wanted one but just didn't make sense

Eh. It’s high but nothing unaffordable.  About $1.15/rd in places.   Compared to 6-7$ for some of my Wby stuff. But yeah it’s harder to find than a lot of other stuff (online is your go to) 
 

Just looked and the Ruger about $600. Real deal FN can be had for $1100. Nothing ground breaking.  

[52-80 19,263]

10 hours ago, TexasEd said:

Rare and expensive gun and the cartridge has armor defeating properties 

+3 mana +12 HP and *2 damage

[TwiceHorn 31,554]

12 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

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?

I don't think there's a hard and fast rule.  But a couple of things probably make that practically true.  First, cops are likely to be the only survivors and witnesses, and, even if they aren't, outnumber the civilian witnesses.  And their testimony on the issue can be assumed to be "uniform," if you get my drift. Second, that whole deference thing, where doubts are mostly indulged in favor of the popo, by DAs, grand juries, and petit juries.

And, of course, this rarely gets tested in an actual criminal trial.  It's usually a civil action from the family after the cop is no-billed by the grand jury or DA.

[Neonmoon 38,130]

 

13 hours 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. 

 

12 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?

 

12 hours ago, sidis said:

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

 

12 hours ago, 52-80 said:

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 ?

You literally agreed it’s justified for a gun owner to brandish a legally owned weapon if someone busts in their house unannounced.

At the same time you’re trying to argue a position that the cops are still legally justified to shoot you if you grab a firearm 

These two positions are incompatible. 

[Guest Lobo]

11 hours ago, Anastasis said:

What is the fascination with the 5.7?

Yeah, I'm dumbfounded by this extrapolation on his firearm.  It's not like they had ample time to assess the firearm and its potential armor-piercing capabilities in the 5 seconds it took to unload multiple rounds into his body and head.  We don't over-analyze the firearms of non-murder victims for days and days, who gives a shit what his gun is/was.  To me, him having an unusual weapon with powerful ammo is just "He had priors/history of drug use/etc. v2.0"    

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

No way they knew what caliber he was shooting.  Doubt they knew his race, unless he was on the warrant.

[Guest Lobo]

Precisely.  Also, I very much doubt he was on the original warrant.  He didn't "live" there.  I also very much doubt that that the warrant isn't being altered retroactively to include him in the "list of usual suspects."  

Man, politics aside...one thing this whole nation can come together on is Minneapolis has got to be the most incompetent police department in the country.  And that's fucking saying something.  My sister lived there for many years and I would have thought, "Okay, keep unruly Vikings fans in check and make sure the Mall of America isn't looted"...but nope, it's one fucking murder after another. 

10,000 Lakes.  10,000 Dirty Cops.  

[Anastasis 23,491]

1 hour ago, Lobo said:

Yeah, I'm dumbfounded by this extrapolation on his firearm.

What surprises me the most is that this kid has in arms reach while sleeping on the couch at his buddy's house an expensive gun that shoots expensive rounds. Like that whole set up screams .380 or 9mm to me. 

[Ag with kids 581]

10 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Eh. It’s high but nothing unaffordable.  About $1.15/rd in places.   Compared to 6-7$ for some of my Wby stuff. But yeah it’s harder to find than a lot of other stuff (online is your go to) 
 

Just looked and the Ruger about $600. Real deal FN can be had for $1100. Nothing ground breaking.  

https://palmettostatearmory.com/american-eagle-5-7x28mm-40gr-tmj-50rds-ae5728a.html

5.7 for $0.80/round...

[sidis 9,832]

29 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What surprises me the most is that this kid has in arms reach while sleeping on the couch at his buddy's house an expensive gun that shoots expensive rounds. Like that whole set up screams .380 or 9mm to me. 

Hey!!

you calling my 9mm PPQ and VP9 trashy and warranting a no knock raid?

Esoteric caliber pedantry tangent on a thread about horrific police behavior not unexpected I suppose. Given the recruiting thread went about 30 pages (which is the equivalent of 2 pages in a normal world thread) on just cheese puns. But still…

[fattyflattie 4,638]

4 hours ago, Lobo said:

To me, him having an unusual weapon with powerful ammo is just "He had priors/history of drug use/etc. v2.0"    

Bingo. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19,227]

21 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

Apparently St Paul had this as a "knock" raid, but Minneapolis went the no knock route?

MN wanted NNR

Shouldn't it be NKR?

[Fudge Nuggets 19,227]

4 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

No way they knew what caliber he was shooting.  Doubt they knew his race, unless he was on the warrant.

Know a lot of whiteys named Amir?

[Guest Lobo]

Of course he does.  He knows many, many Amirs.  They all hang out together with his gun-toting black friends.  

Sometimes I picture Johnny Sack as the lone white guy in a United Colors of Benetton commercial.  

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Shouldn't it be NKR?

yes. 

12 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Know a lot of whiteys named Amir?

Hmmmmm….

[hobbes2702 13,078]

6 hours ago, Lobo said:

Precisely.  Also, I very much doubt he was on the original warrant.  He didn't "live" there.  I also very much doubt that that the warrant isn't being altered retroactively to include him in the "list of usual suspects."  

Man, politics aside...one thing this whole nation can come together on is Minneapolis has got to be the most incompetent police department in the country.  And that's fucking saying something.  My sister lived there for many years and I would have thought, "Okay, keep unruly Vikings fans in check and make sure the Mall of America isn't looted"...but nope, it's one fucking murder after another. 

10,000 Lakes.  10,000 Dirty Cops.  

It’s not incompetence.

[Anastasis 23,491]

3 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Know a lot of whiteys named Amir?

I was under impression that the individual killed was not the subject of the warrant?

[52-80 19,263]

8 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

You literally agreed it’s justified for a gun owner to brandish a legally owned weapon if someone busts in their house unannounced.

At the same time you’re trying to argue a position that the cops are still legally justified to shoot you if you grab a firearm 

These two positions are incompatible. 

1. The shooting was a response to a gun.  (not a skin color, or a legality of the gun, or wanton target practice on a sleeping person)

2.The response was correct. 

3.The cause of seeing the gun was the police's sudden intrusion. 

4. The cause was wrong, therefore the police are ultimately wrong and liable .

Outrage warriors' gonna outrage

[nineliveslost 2,799]

4 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

1. The shooting was a response to a gun.  (not a skin color, or a legality of the gun, or wanton target practice on a sleeping person)

2.The response was correct. 

3.The cause of seeing the gun was the police's sudden intrusion. 

4. The cause was wrong, therefore the police are ultimately wrong and liable .

Outrage warriors' gonna outrage

1. the response to a gun was them breaking down a door in the early morning in someone's home that they should have never been at

I guess cops have free-for-all at a shooting range and kill everyone, 'cause you know those lawbreakers are holding guns

2. they saw a gun because the trespassed in my opinion illegally into someone private residence. 

But that's cool, let's just allow police to go anywhere and justify any reason to KILL someone 

3. The cause...the cause!!! They killed someone because they got all riled up and decided they would be judge, jury and executioner.

 

no knocks are bullshit and should be illegal

breaking into an innocent person's home is illegal

shooting someone defending themselves in THIER home is illegal

fuck these cops 

and you are god damn right I am outraged and fuck you for not being outraged 

[Helobious 9,467]

21 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

1. The shooting was a response to a gun.  (not a skin color, or a legality of the gun, or wanton target practice on a sleeping person)

2.The response was correct. 

3.The cause of seeing the gun was the police's sudden intrusion. 

4. The cause was wrong, therefore the police are ultimately wrong and liable .

Outrage warriors' gonna outrage

1. I walk up and punch you in the face unprovoked, and continue advancing/attacking 

2. You reach for your gun in self-defense

3. Seeing this, I whip out my gun and shoot you

Do you think the court will find me guilty of murder or just assault? The answer is not as complex as you think it is.

[Newdoc 3,453]

Minneapolis PD trying to defund themselves and the taxpayers in just a few years. Bravo! Idoits.

[nineliveslost 2,799]

12 minutes ago, Newdoc said:

Minneapolis PD trying to defund themselves and the taxpayers in just a few years. Bravo! Idoits.

Stop drinking

[52-80 19,263]

1 hour ago, nineliveslost said:

1. the response to a gun was them breaking down a door in the early morning in someone's home that they should have never been at

I guess cops have free-for-all at a shooting range and kill everyone, 'cause you know those lawbreakers are holding guns

2. they saw a gun because the trespassed in my opinion illegally into someone private residence. 

But that's cool, let's just allow police to go anywhere and justify any reason to KILL someone 

3. The cause...the cause!!! They killed someone because they got all riled up and decided they would be judge, jury and executioner.

 

no knocks are bullshit and should be illegal

breaking into an innocent person's home is illegal

shooting someone defending themselves in THIER home is illegal

fuck these cops 

and you are god damn right I am outraged and fuck you for not being outraged 

I agree with all those points especially since i wrote them over and over and over again but some of yall are too emotional to read ?

 

55 minutes ago, Helobious said:

1. I walk up and punch you in the face unprovoked, and continue advancing/attacking 

2. You reach for your gun in self-defense

3. Seeing this, I whip out my gun and shoot you

Do you think the court will find me guilty of murder or just assault? The answer is not as complex as you think it is.

Not analogous and thus irrelevant. Not sure if youre purposely stupid or that it just comes natural. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19,227]

Should everyone start booby trapping their doors with high explosives before going to bed?

[nineliveslost 2,799]

2 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

I agree with all those points especially since i wrote them over and over and over again but some of yall are too emotional to read ?

 

I am rational in my thinking, but I am damn sure emotional (but sane) with cops murdering an individual because they violated someone liberties and show no fucking remorse. 

We need to get emotional and logical to solve this shit before you or I die at the hands of an execution... This shit is getting old

having calm conversations and hugging groups isn't solving shit. people are dying because of an oppressive action by the police force or government. A revolution is brewing 

[atomheartbevo 89,824]

25 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Should everyone start booby trapping their doors with high explosives before going to bed?

You don't?

[Fudge Nuggets 19,227]

Just now, atomheartbevo said:

You don't?

I use the old school swinging door of shit-tipped punji sticks.  Time to up my home defense game.

[52-80 19,263]

10 minutes ago, nineliveslost said:

I am rational in my thinking, but I am damn sure emotional (but sane) with cops murdering an individual because they violated someone liberties and show no fucking remorse. 

We need to get emotional and logical to solve this shit before you or I die at the hands of an execution... This shit is getting old

having calm conversations and hugging groups isn't solving shit. people are dying because of an oppressive action by the police force or government. A revolution is brewing 

logically, the problem isnt that the police shot in response to the handgun, the problem was the the issuing of and use of the no-knock warrant. that precipitated the scenario that required deadly force. 
 

thus, if the intel was sloppy, if the cause of the warrant was unjust, etc etc etc, then those bearing the most blame should be the ones proposing and authorizing the warrant….and not the person or the act of pulling the trigger. 
 

thats what people should focus their ire at…and not the color of their skins or other red herring. 

[nineliveslost 2,799]

2 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

logically, the problem isnt that the police shot in response to the handgun, the problem was the the issuing of and use of the no-knock warrant. that precipitated the scenario that required deadly force. 
 

thus, if the intel was sloppy, if the cause of the warrant was unjust, etc etc etc, then those bearing the most blame should be the ones proposing and authorizing the warrant….and not the person or the act of pulling the trigger. 
 

thats what people should focus their ire at…and not the color of their skins or other red herring. 

I agree with most of your response and appreciate the rational discussion

I disagree where police use deadly force when a surprise tactic is used on a legal individual. What was the guy (or anyone) supposed to do when they get surprised in their own home ??? They don't deserve to die under any circumstance. This isn't some state where you can barge in and just shoot away. We have rights and are protected under the constitution. 

We have to stop the mindset of everyone is guilty and executed, instead of innocent until proven guilty. 

I am sitting here as a law-abiding citizen, but if the door busted open, I would grab my gun and more than likely be killed by cops because i was surprised. That shit isnt right and their action isnt defended by the constitution. What the fuck am I suppose to do ????????

[HornOnTheBayou 8,950]

52 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Should everyone start booby trapping their doors with high explosives before going to bed?

 

26 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

You don't?

I prefer icing down the steps to my door so the intruder slips. If they are able to get past that and breach the house's interior, I have a can of paint on a string waiting for them on the stairs. Last resort is my pet tarantula that I place on the intruder's face. So far it's worked pretty good.

[Neonmoon 38,130]

2 hours ago, 52-80 said:

1. The shooting was a response to a gun.  (not a skin color, or a legality of the gun, or wanton target practice on a sleeping person)

2.The response was correct. 

3.The cause of seeing the gun was the police's sudden intrusion. 

4. The cause was wrong, therefore the police are ultimately wrong and liable .

Outrage warriors' gonna outrage

Why are you using mental gymnastics to separate the cause from the response? 

Yes, if the police knocked on the door and said it’s the police, and they were allowed in the house by a homeowner, and then a guy on the couch suddenly jumped for his gun, yes in that completely different scenario that has nothing to do with this scenario, the cops would be justified in that shooting 

 

[Newdoc 3,453]

1 hour ago, nineliveslost said:

Stop drinking

So you don’t agree that incidents like this will push for blanket reduction of funding for the police force (not arguing the merit) and simultaneously result in huge civil payouts that will come directly from the tax coffers created by the citizens? Are these not historical consequences of law enforcement malfeasance?

[52-80 19,263]

9 minutes ago, nineliveslost said:

I agree with most of your response and appreciate the rational discussion

I disagree where police use deadly force when a surprise tactic is used on a legal individual. What was the guy (or anyone) supposed to do when they get surprised in their own home ??? They don't deserve to die under any circumstance. This isn't some state where you can barge in and just shoot away. We have rights and are protected under the constitution. 

We have to stop the mindset of everyone is guilty and executed, instead of innocent until proven guilty. 

I am sitting here as a law-abiding citizen, but if the door busted open, I would grab my gun and more than likely be killed by cops because i was surprised. That shit isnt right and their action isnt defended by the constitution. What the fuck am I suppose to do ????????

i disagree with the entire notion of 6am surprise-bust thing from the get-go. so theres not much to debate one-another after that point. 

the police should be comparatively more resourced to be able to apprehend someone in a more controlled manner. 

accepting that the police were instructed to pursue someone dangerous and armed in a threatening situation*, what they shouldnt do is NOT SHOOT BACK when a handgun is pointed their way. 

and if any part of that instruction wasnt credible or justified, thats where the blame lie. 

theres no blame of the death on the sleeping guy, or the hemorrhage, or the bullet, or the cartridge, or the gun, or the shooter (of the squad they sent)….finger needs to be pointed higher up the chain is what im saying

[52-80 19,263]

28 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Why are you using mental gymnastics to separate the cause from the response? 

 

Because it non-trivially determines who is at most fault. 

Why don’t you crease some wrinkles upstairs and tell me who you think is most responsible, and also who you think *I think* is most responsible?

[Captainant 27,826]

15 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Because it non-trivially determines who is at most fault. 

Walk me through how a motherfucker sleeping in bed is at fault for getting shot by the cops. You keep implying that there's blame to be spread all around, or that the deceased somehow is culpable in some degree.

[Neonmoon 38,130]

1 hour ago, 52-80 said:

Because it non-trivially determines who is at most fault. 

Why don’t you crease some wrinkles upstairs and tell me who you think is most responsible, and also who you think *I think* is most responsible?

You’re creating a fictional scenario to justify police behavior 

Who do I think is most responsible in what actually happens or your fictional scenario? In the actual incident, I think the police are at fault and you think the police are at fault. You’ve stated as much.

In the stupid fictional scenario you created for unknown reasons, where the police justifiably enter a residence and the suspect reaches for a gun, the couch surfer is at fault, and you think the couch surfer is at fault. 

So back to my original question, why the mental gymnastics? Why create the fictional scenario to say when police can justifiably shoot a person reaching for a gun when it has nothing to fucking do with this scenario?

 

 

[Pato del Muerto 52,616]

I’ve decided to place an ottoman just outside the path of the door.  Should take care of anyone that breaks the door  and comes charging inside in darkness. 

[TexasEd 8,077]

The implication of the 5.7 is that it is a cop killer round. 

[Brisketexan 105,438]

The implication of the 5.7 is that it is a cop killer round. 

Seems like more people in Minneapolis should carry it for protection, then, given the proclivity for the cops there to murder the shit out of you. Self defense is serious bidness.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,977]

This is more of the police as an institution being responsible for the death rather than the individual cops who shot him. The individual cops were provably told they were serving a warrant on a dangerous individual and responded as such. Unless of course the ones serving the warrant were the ones who pushed for it to be a no knock raid. And that, to me is a worse sign than if one individual cop went and murdered someone.the entire system needs to be fixed.

[HenryJames 66,188]

10 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Should everyone start booby trapping their doors with high explosives before going to bed?

[52-80 19,263]

8 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

You’re creating a fictional scenario to justify police behavior 

Who do I think is most responsible in what actually happens or your fictional scenario? In the actual incident, I think the police are at fault and you think the police are at fault. You’ve stated as much.

In the stupid fictional scenario you created for unknown reasons, where the police justifiably enter a residence and the suspect reaches for a gun, the couch surfer is at fault, and you think the couch surfer is at fault. 

So back to my original question, why the mental gymnastics? Why create the fictional scenario to say when police can justifiably shoot a person reaching for a gun when it has nothing to fucking do with this scenario?

Whats with your projecting fictitious arguments to fight against?

In this actual event, both the reaction of the sleeping guy, and the police assigned to a dangerous arrest, were proper within their context. 

That the assignment itself is wrong means you string up the captain, not the officer. 

Yall thicker than a bowl of oatmeal. 

[aggie08 21,555]

31 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Whats with your projecting fictitious arguments to fight against?

In this actual event, both the reaction of the sleeping guy, and the police assigned to a dangerous arrest, were proper within their context. 

That the assignment itself is wrong means you string up the captain, not the officer. 

Yall thicker than a bowl of oatmeal. 

Is that what's going to happen, or are they going to string out the officer to protect the institution?

[Neonmoon 38,130]

2 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Whats with your projecting fictitious arguments to fight against?

In this actual event, both the reaction of the sleeping guy, and the police assigned to a dangerous arrest, were proper within their context. 

That the assignment itself is wrong means you string up the captain, not the officer. 

Yall thicker than a bowl of oatmeal. 

That’s actually an interesting argument. In our legal system, if we were forced to find someone culpable, between the police officer and the person who ordered the raid/got the no knock warrant. What would a court find? 

[Captainant 27,826]

2 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Whats with your projecting fictitious arguments to fight against?

In this actual event, both the reaction of the sleeping guy, and the police assigned to a dangerous arrest, were proper within their context. 

That the assignment itself is wrong means you string up the captain, not the officer. 

Yall thicker than a bowl of oatmeal. 

"Just following orders" isn't a great defense, historically speaking.

[Brisketexan 105,438]

"Just following orders" isn't a great defense, historically speaking.

It’ll work just fine here. Because in case you hadn’t noticed, in matters of cops and all things “Back the Blue,” we’ve opted for full-on fascism. Sure, there’s dissent and resistance, like there has been under all fascist regimes….but the dominant ethos is “law and order! Back the Blue!” If the cops do it, it’s legal, because they are the authorities and they are heroes who are better than us peons, and you should shut up and thank them for their service and be grateful they all made it home safe to their families that night, where the shooter also had the best sex of his life after killing someone.

The handful of cases where you’ve seen them held accountable are a rare exception to the rule. And remember how many they just walk on - remember officer “GET FUCKED,” who murdered a man crawling in a motel hallway? Bow to your betters, peasant, and maybe they’ll let you live. Or not. The choice is theirs, and theirs alone.

[52-80 19,263]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

That’s actually an interesting argument. In our legal system, if we were forced to find someone culpable, between the police officer and the person who ordered the raid/got the no knock warrant. What would a court find? 

Cool false dilemma. Whats that about fictional scenario again? 

[TwiceHorn 31,554]

36 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It’ll work just fine here. Because in case you hadn’t noticed, in matters of cops and all things “Back the Blue,” we’ve opted for full-on fascism. Sure, there’s dissent and resistance, like there has been under all fascist regimes….but the dominant ethos is “law and order! Back the Blue!” If the cops do it, it’s legal, because they are the authorities and they are heroes who are better than us peons, and you should shut up and thank them for their service and be grateful they all made it home safe to their families that night, where the shooter also had the best sex of his life after killing someone.

The handful of cases where you’ve seen them held accountable are a rare exception to the rule. And remember how many they just walk on - remember officer “GET FUCKED,” who murdered a man crawling in a motel hallway? Bow to your betters, peasant, and maybe they’ll let you live. Or not. The choice is theirs, and theirs alone.

The other thing is that cops and politicians have done a bang-up job of instilling fear in the populace of crime and criminals. So that, at worst, cops and their tactics appear to be a necessary evil.

We have accepted the narrative that cops reduce crime, hook, line, and sinker.  And, in some senses they do.  But I think the correlation between crime and cops,the number of cops, and the "necessary tactics" they employ is not as simple and clear cut as it may appear.

I beg people to think critically when presented with "tough on crime" arguments and not just blindly accept them.  This shouldn't be a liberal vs. conservative issue.

[scottsins 1,975]

It’ll work just fine here. Because in case you hadn’t noticed, in matters of cops and all things “Back the Blue,” we’ve opted for full-on fascism. Sure, there’s dissent and resistance, like there has been under all fascist regimes….but the dominant ethos is “law and order! Back the Blue!” If the cops do it, it’s legal, because they are the authorities and they are heroes who are better than us peons, and you should shut up and thank them for their service and be grateful they all made it home safe to their families that night, where the shooter also had the best sex of his life after killing someone.

The handful of cases where you’ve seen them held accountable are a rare exception to the rule. And remember how many they just walk on - remember officer “GET FUCKED,” who murdered a man crawling in a motel hallway? Bow to your betters, peasant, and maybe they’ll let you live. Or not. The choice is theirs, and theirs alone.

The rank and file can legally use the defense of “good faith reliance”, I believe? That defense would obviously not be available to any officers who should have known that the address was incorrect.