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

[TwiceHorn 31663]

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? 

In a whole lot of cases, the officers that execute the warrant are the same ones that secure it by affidavit and testimony.  Although in most cases, the affidavit is signed by a single officer.

A judge reviews the affidavit, and I'm sure a "captain" or supervisory officer approves the application for a warrant, but they are at the mercy of the investigating/executing officers as to the truth and accuracy of the allegations in support of the warrant.  In most cases, it's going to be hard to tag the judge or supervisory officer with liability unless they are somehow complicit with the false or inaccurate information in the warrant application.

And, it's conceivable that most everything in the warrant and warrant application was on the "up and up," but the actual execution of it involved mistakes.

[Captainant 27923]

Maybe giving broad sweeping immunity to those who are authorized by the state to do violence against it's citizens wasn't the best idea...

[Pato del Muerto 52700]

I for one have a difficult time believing that cops would write down false or misleading information in an attempt to tell the story that they want told.  That’s the work of criminals, not heroes. 

[TwiceHorn 31663]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

Maybe giving broad sweeping immunity to those who are authorized by the state to do violence against it's citizens wasn't the best idea...

Not defending it, per se, but if you are fair-minded about it, you can see why it exists.

The Supreme Court gets a lot of shit for "inventing" qualified immunity, but without it, there would be absolute immunity.

It does need some serious recalibration, though.

[Captainant 27923]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not defending it, per se, but if you are fair-minded about it, you can see why it exists.

The Supreme Court gets a lot of shit for "inventing" qualified immunity, but without it, there would be absolute immunity.

It does need some serious recalibration, though.

I understand the necessity of it, but the system as is cannot continue. It's out of control, and the police have demonstrated time and time again they will abuse and weaponize it against the people.

 

[Junior Miller 1502]

21 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Know a lot of whiteys named Amir?

Yes. Croatians

[Nivek 17016]

13 hours ago, TexasEd said:

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

 If we are going to allow gun sales to every tom dick and hank, we cannot then start parsing what they buy as insidious based on what is temporally convenient.   

[Gladeite 375]

On 2/4/2022 at 8:44 PM, Anastasis said:

What is the fascination with the 5.7?

The 5.7 x 28 is known for its stopping power in a handgun platform.  Very high speed projectile that has devastating affects on humans.  Soft point and fmj are lethal.  Best known example is pos Hasan at Fort Hood.  Of the 13 killed, 11 were one shot kills.  Hits anywhere in the chest were fatal.   Due to the high pressure of the round, platforms are bulky.  

[Brisketexan 105509]

Not defending it, per se, but if you are fair-minded about it, you can see why it exists.
The Supreme Court gets a lot of shit for "inventing" qualified immunity, but without it, there would be absolute immunity.
It does need some serious recalibration, though.

What’s a killer is the utterly insane extension of the “clearly established law” element, particularly by the more conservative courts of appeal. And read some of their opinions citing it, it’s funny as hell. They are quite tsk-tsk when evaluating any other type of government official (“how DARE these bureaucrats make that permit decision! Government is bad, and they should know better!”)…compared to how they evaluate cops (“sure, there was once a situation just like this one that we held violated the constitution, but see, that happened on a Tuesday, and the events of this case were on a Friday, so the law just wasn’t clearly established, the cop just couldn’t know for sure that his conduct in shooting a guy in the face for chewing gum in public was illegal.”)

Our “government is bad” crowd and courts sure love them some authoritarian cops*, which means that cops correctly believe that they can do as they wish with impunity.

* well, I mean, you know, so long as the cops follow the “rule of law” as that crowd understands it - rules that protect us but don’t bind us, but bind the other and don’t protect them. That’s our little social contract.

[Neonmoon 38130]

2 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Cool false dilemma. Whats that about fictional scenario again? 

Why is it a false dilemma? 

[Al_4_ISU 12519]

On 2/5/2022 at 9:42 AM, 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.  

Iowa liberals (and I say this as one) love to whine about our state government (which is objectively awful right now) and talk about how great it must be to live in Minnesota with a more like minded state government.

Well, we aren't looking at a monthly extrajudicial minority murder in Iowa (yet).  I guess I'd rather have batshit crazy Republican legislatures enacting a bunch of a laws that will be found unconstitutional upon challenge than constantly be the center of the government murdering brown people.

[wildcat09 29449]

23 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not defending it, per se, but if you are fair-minded about it, you can see why it exists.

The Supreme Court gets a lot of shit for "inventing" qualified immunity, but without it, there would be absolute immunity.

It does need some serious recalibration, though.

The Ku Klux Klan Act says otherwise.

[Dahobbs 17757]

On 2/6/2022 at 5:36 AM, 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. 

I disagree. Again, you're drawing too fine a line. The cops "announced", busted in, and shot within like 6 seconds. As far as I can tell, the gun wasn't even actually pointed at them. It just existed. All of that is wrong. The shooting wasn't proper in that context. When cops put themselves first, put citizens in danger by placing them in situations that require instantaneous and perfect responses, and that results in a citizens death, then no, the shooting isn't proper. It wouldn't have mattered if they had the right house and the right suspect. Cops aren't judge and jury. The shooting was wrong in every which way. 

[Brisketexan 105509]

12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

When cops put themselves first, put citizens in danger by placing them in situations that require instantaneous and perfect responses, and that results in a citizens death, then no, the shooting isn't proper. It wouldn't have mattered if they had the right house and the right suspect. Cops aren't judge and jury. The shooting was wrong in every which way. 

This.  Even if the cops did it all right, someone busted into a house in the dark of night.  A resident of that house reflexively responded to defend himself, as is his right. Shit, as most of the "law and order" crowd tells us is among his most SACRED rights -- the right to defend his castle.  When a citizen is acting 100% within his rights, he shouldn't end up dead.  Any action by the cops that results in a citizen, who is acting 100% within his rights, getting shot dead, is a wrongful action.

[52-80 19277]

On 2/6/2022 at 1:09 PM, aggie08 said:

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

Meaningless question: what I (or you or anyone else) think is going to happen is inconsequential.

Better question: what do we want to happen / what should happen?

31 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I disagree. Again, you're drawing too fine a line. The cops "announced", busted in, and shot within like 6 seconds. As far as I can tell, the gun wasn't even actually pointed at them. It just existed. All of that is wrong. The shooting wasn't proper in that context. When cops put themselves first, put citizens in danger by placing them in situations that require instantaneous and perfect responses, and that results in a citizens death, then no, the shooting isn't proper. It wouldn't have mattered if they had the right house and the right suspect. Cops aren't judge and jury. The shooting was wrong in every which way. 

So what do you charge the shooting cop with?  What's his/her motivation?  And the rest of the squad: accessory?  Should cops be muzzled from shooting in response to gun, in the context of a dangerous bust? 

Wait - you say - but the bust is wrong, and the cops constructed the danger!  If so, I fully agree.  In that case, wouldn't the blame be on the ones pushing for the bust, and enabling the scenario in the first place?  It's like blaming a dog instead of the owner. 

I'm amazed this take is even controversial.  We've got a pretty clear case of a structural wrong here but some would rather finger the foot soldier instead and brisketexan gets to pen another tirade about the incoming destruction of society.

[Captainant 27923]

58 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

It's like blaming a dog instead of the owner. 

Well to borrow what you said in the thread about a dog getting killed because of terrible owners... "control your fucking dog, idiot"

If police captains don't want their officers to face murder charges for just following orders, maybe they shouldn't give them such shitty orders.

1 hour ago, 52-80 said:

I'm amazed this take is even controversial.  We've got a pretty clear case of a structural wrong here but some would rather finger the foot soldier instead and brisketexan gets to pen another tirade about the incoming destruction of society.

It's controversial because if you haven't noticed, the last time we tried to address structural wrongs in policing it was immediately reframed as "defunding the police" and answered with blue lives matter and punisher stickers. We can't get after the structure of policing, because it sure as shit hasn't worked for the last decade. 

Rather than trying the same thing again and hoping for a different result, let's just fucking start punishing the people pulling the fucking trigger for a start. Maybe that'll actually make a difference. 

[Dahobbs 17757]

1 hour ago, 52-80 said:

Wait - you say - but the bust is wrong, and the cops constructed the danger!  If so, I fully agree.  In that case, wouldn't the blame be on the ones pushing for the bust, and enabling the scenario in the first place?  It's like blaming a dog instead of the owner. 

I'm amazed this take is even controversial.  We've got a pretty clear case of a structural wrong here but some would rather finger the foot soldier instead and brisketexan gets to pen another tirade about the incoming destruction of society.

Why do you think it has to be one or the other? I think the person that approved the raid was wrong. I think the cops that executed the raid were wrong. You're making this more complicated than it has to be for reasons that are beyond me. 

Quote

So what do you charge the shooting cop with?  What's his/her motivation?  And the rest of the squad: accessory?  Should cops be muzzled from shooting in response to gun, in the context of a dangerous bust? 

Let me answer the last question first:

Q. Should cops be muzzled from shooting in response to gun, in the context of a dangerous bust?

A. Cops should avoid the use of lethal force even to the extent of putting themselves in danger. A cop's duty is to the citizens first. Only when no other option is available should a officer use lethal force. To the extent cops conduct no knock raids, I think that means waiting until they are actually fired upon before returning fire. They have to give the citizen as much opportunity as possible to orient themselves to the situation and deescalate. And hey, maybe if that was the required procedure, cops would be less gung-ho about doing no knock raids in the first place. 

First question:

Q.  What do you charge the shooting cop with?  What's his/her motivation?  And the rest of the squad: accessory? 

Your question presumes that the conduct is criminal. It can be wrongful (and thus open up liability to a lawsuit) but not necessarily criminal. That said, this event seems to fit manslaughter pretty well, but keep in mind I don't know Minnesota's criminal statutes that well.

First Degree Manslaughter (fits less well, and very strangely worded):

Quote

609.20 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.

Whoever does any of the following is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both: (3) intentionally causes the death of another person because the actor is coerced by threats made by someone other than the actor's coconspirator and which cause the actor reasonably to believe that the act performed by the actor is the only means of preventing imminent death to the actor or another; 

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.20

Second Degree Manslaughter (good fit):

Quote

 

609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.

A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both: (1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another; 

 

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.205

Edited February 7, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Goofyboy 3302]

NRA is awful quiet. The victim grabbed his gun and still had his finger on the side when he was murdered. Seems like a great time for the NRA to chime in in support of gun owners…

[Brisketexan 105509]

1 hour ago, 52-80 said:

I'm amazed this take is even controversial.  We've got a pretty clear case of a structural wrong here but some would rather finger the foot soldier instead and brisketexan gets to pen another tirade about the incoming destruction of society.

I get to chime in on that because even though every sane and rational person can see that this is fucked up and major structural changes should be made.....we are not a sane and rational society.  Any effort to fix this structure will be met with reflexive "LAW AND ORDER! BACK THE BLUE! COMMIES WANT TO DEFUND THE POLICE LEAVING YOU TO BE RAPED IN YOUR HOME BY MS-13!"  Any effort to reform police and shift resources is met with that sort of rhetoric.  And it works.  It works well.  And....the only thing that will happen will be an INCREASE of police budgets and power.

This is how we do these things.  We've demonstrated it repeatedly.  

[52-80 19277]

8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Why do you think it has to be one or the other? I think the person that approved the raid was wrong. I think the cops that executed the raid were wrong. You're making this more complicated than it has to be for reasons that are beyond me. 

Why?  The why is pretty obvious, because it's a declaration of culpability, a guide for future behavior, and an attempt to solve the root cause. You thinking a part of the cause is the shooting?  OK, that's your opinion.... 

 

8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Let me answer the last question first:

Q. Should cops be muzzled from shooting in response to gun, in the context of a dangerous bust?

A. Cops should avoid the use of lethal force even to the extent of putting themselves in danger. A cop's duty is to the citizens first. Only when no other option is available should a officer use lethal force. To the extent cops conduct no knock raids, I think that means waiting until they are actually fired upon before returning fire. They have to give the citizen as much opportunity as possible to orient themselves to the situation and deescalate. And hey, maybe if that was the required procedure, cops would be less gung-ho about doing no knock raids in the first place. 

First question:

Q.  What do you charge the shooting cop with?  What's his/her motivation?  And the rest of the squad: accessory? 

Your question presumes that the conduct is criminal. It can be wrongful (and thus open up liability to a lawsuit) but not necessarily criminal. That said, this event seems to fit manslaughter pretty well, but keep in mind I don't know Minnesota's criminal statutes that well.

...Brisket bemoaned upthread about how this doesn't occur in nicer NW Hills type neighborhoods.  Funny, cops are equally armed in nice neighborhoods, and they're trained to the same procedures, and this stuff doesn't happen.  Almost like the gun and escalation of force isn't the problem, but the raid itself.  You want to make the declaration that cops shouldn't shoot unless they're shot at first... and in a raid where they're shown a gun, and is liable for manslaughter for shooting back... well good luck recruiting for that police force, and I hope you live in a nice neighborhood.

 

 

[Brisketexan 105509]

2 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Funny, cops are equally armed in nice neighborhoods, and they're trained to the same procedures, and this stuff doesn't happen.  Almost like the gun and escalation of force isn't the problem, but the raid itself.

You are THIS close to figuring out a big part of the issue.

[GopherRock 1772]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Any effort to fix this structure will be met with reflexive "LAW AND ORDER! BACK THE BLUE! COMMIES WANT TO DEFUND THE POLICE LEAVING YOU TO BE RAPED IN YOUR HOME BY MS-13!"  Any effort to reform police and shift resources is met with that sort of rhetoric.  And it works.  It works well.  And....the only thing that will happen will be an INCREASE of police budgets and power.

This is how we do these things.  We've demonstrated it repeatedly.  

This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that MPD and their backers filled inboxes, airwaves, and mail bins with during the runup to the 2021 municipal election. This election featured Question 2, which would have dissolved MPD and replaced it with a Department of Public Safety.

 

As for a potential charge, Man 2 seems like the right one here, but this will be a hard one. One thing that is for sure is that the Hennepin County jury pool is willing to convict police officers who kill civilians, having done so twice in the past year.

[Dahobbs 17757]

14 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Why?  The why is pretty obvious, because it's a declaration of culpability, a guide for future behavior, and an attempt to solve the root cause. You thinking a part of the cause is the shooting?  OK, that's your opinion.... 

Fuck yes part of the cause is the actual shooting. Are you fucking high? The cops shot a guy within 6 seconds of entering the home in the dead of night. You're trying to generalize to the point of absurdity and removing all context from the situation. The problem in this scenario wasn't just that cops had the wrong guy or perhaps even the wrong apartment. The problem wasn't just that they entered without knocking in the dead of night. And the problem wasn't just that they fired before giving the guy on the couch a reasonable opportunity to understand the situation. The problem was all of those things. Everyone single one of the. And any single one of them, isolated on its own, is still a problem. 

Quote

Brisket bemoaned upthread about how this doesn't occur in nicer NW Hills type neighborhoods.  Funny, cops are equally armed in nice neighborhoods, and they're trained to the same procedures, and this stuff doesn't happen.  Almost like the gun and escalation of force isn't the problem, but the raid itself.  You want to make the declaration that cops shouldn't shoot unless they're shot at first... and in a raid where they're shown a gun, and is liable for manslaughter for shooting back... well good luck recruiting for that police force, and I hope you live in a nice neighborhood.

Yes, yes I do when the cops use a method that puts the citizen in the position of having to figure out what is going on in 6 seconds, in the dead of night. I'm not suggesting a blanket policy of wait to be shot at first. I'm suggesting a policy specific to the context of these sort of non-knock raids. Citizens aren't given a reasonable opportunity to understand what is happening and comply. That needs to fucking change. It is both a problem with the folks approving these raids and the people executing them. 

Edited February 7, 2022 by Dahobbs

[TexasEd 8077]

Anything on the warrant yet? Any new facts?

• Were they at the right house/address?
• Does the address on the warrant match the one St Paul provided?
• Was the suspect they wanted even there?
• Was the dead guy on the warrant?
• I heard that St Paul asked for normal execution of the warrant and that someone in Minneapolis decided to go the NKR route.  Has this been confirmed?

 

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by TexasEd

[Dahobbs 17757]

The cops have every advantage here. They have superior training, superior numbers, awareness of the situation, and the element of surprise. Why in the blue fuck would it be unreasonable to suggest that maybe, given all those advantages, we should put more of the burden to respond perfectly on the cops and not joe schmoe being awoken at 3:00 am in the morning? 

[TwiceHorn 31663]

3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

The Ku Klux Klan Act says otherwise.

Well, in the case that "invented" it, only Wm. O. Douglas agreed with you.  But apparently only to the extent that judges receive absolute immunity.  He apparently was fine with the qualified part.

[Goofyboy 3302]

Anything on the warrant yet? Any new facts?

• Were they at the right house/address?
• Does the address on the warrant match the one St Paul provided?
• Was the suspect they wanted even there?
• Was the dead guy on the warrant?
• I heard that St Paul asked for normal execution of the warrant and that someone in Minneapolis decided to go the NKR route.  Has this been confirmed?

 
 

I heard the same thing that it was not supposed to be a no knock and that was over ruled by the assholes on the scene.

[52-80 19277]

29 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Fuck yes part of the cause is the actual shooting. Are you fucking high? The cops shot a guy within 6 seconds of entering the home in the dead of night. You're trying to generalize to the point of absurdity and removing all context from the situation. The problem in this scenario wasn't just that cops had the wrong guy or perhaps even the wrong apartment. The problem wasn't just that they entered without knocking in the dead of night. And the problem wasn't just that they fired before giving the guy on the couch a reasonable opportunity to understand the situation. The problem was all of those things. Everyone single one of the. And any single one of them, isolated on its own, is still a problem. 

Yes, yes I do when the cops use a method that puts the citizen in the position of having to figure out what is going on in 6 seconds, in the dead of night. I'm not suggesting a blanket policy of wait to be shot at first. I'm suggesting a policy specific to the context of these sort of non-knock raids. Citizens aren't given a reasonable opportunity to understand what is happening and comply. That needs to fucking change. It is both a problem with the folks approving these raids and the people executing them. 

 

Wow, these are all terrific points that had not occurred to me.  Thanks for bringing them up.

Let's count the emphasis:  3 dead-of-nights; 2 no-time-to-comprehends; and 2 it's-contextually-important. 

Seems like you believe it's this N.K.W. thing that's really behind these insoluble scenarios, and you don't necessarily suggest a policy of wait-to-be-shot-at-first... but oh yeah by the way the person at the very tail end of this chain is also the problem. 

[Dahobbs 17757]

27 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

 

Wow, these are all terrific points that had not occurred to me.  Thanks for bringing them up.

Let's count the emphasis:  3 dead-of-nights; 2 no-time-to-comprehends; and 2 it's-contextually-important. 

Seems like you believe it's this N.K.W. thing that's really behind these insoluble scenarios, and you don't necessarily suggest a policy of wait-to-be-shot-at-first... but oh yeah by the way the person at the very tail end of this chain is also the problem. 

I give up with you. You need it to be one thing. The world doesn't work that way. 

['stache 21899]

I don't see how broad gun ownership rights, castle doctrines, and no-knock warrants can all co-exist without this being a regular outcome (even if they have the right target it sets up a framework for extrajudicial execution prior to conviction or even arrest for mostly non-capital cases anyway). 

Since the first two are almost certainly going to stay, I would think we could get enough bi-partisan agreement to dissolve no-knock warrants. I think the most common arguments for their existence are pretty weak.

[Neonmoon 38130]

48 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

and you don't necessarily suggest a policy of wait-to-be-shot-at-first... but oh yeah by the way the person at the very tail end of this chain is also the problem. 

What if - and believe me this is hypothetical - but what if there was a space between "shoot first within 6 seconds" and "wait to be shot at first"?

[wildcat09 29449]

1 hour ago, 52-80 said:

Why?  The why is pretty obvious, because it's a declaration of culpability, a guide for future behavior, and an attempt to solve the root cause. You thinking a part of the cause is the shooting?  OK, that's your opinion.... 

 

...Brisket bemoaned upthread about how this doesn't occur in nicer NW Hills type neighborhoods.  Funny, cops are equally armed in nice neighborhoods, and they're trained to the same procedures, and this stuff doesn't happen.  Almost like the gun and escalation of force isn't the problem, but the raid itself.  You want to make the declaration that cops shouldn't shoot unless they're shot at first... and in a raid where they're shown a gun, and is liable for manslaughter for shooting back... well good luck recruiting for that police force, and I hope you live in a nice neighborhood.

 

 

Seems like our boy here acknowledges that cops become cops because they want to commit violence with impunity.

[Dahobbs 17757]

50 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

 

Wow, these are all terrific points that had not occurred to me.  Thanks for bringing them up.

Let's count the emphasis:  3 dead-of-nights; 2 no-time-to-comprehends; and 2 it's-contextually-important. 

Seems like you believe it's this N.K.W. thing that's really behind these insoluble scenarios, and you don't necessarily suggest a policy of wait-to-be-shot-at-first... but oh yeah by the way the person at the very tail end of this chain is also the problem. 

 

21 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I give up with you. You need it to be one thing. The world doesn't work that way. 

Ok, I lied. One last post on this:

First, I absolutely agree the no knock warrants are a problem.  Glad we agree on that. Where we appear to differ is that you see one problem, whereas I see many. Six seconds from identifying yourself as officers to firing should be unacceptable in almost any scenario. Let's say these officers are walking down the street and a man standing behind his truck pulls out a gun. Now, like here, the gun isn't actually pointed at the officers. Is it acceptable in that scenario for the officers to shoot? Slightly different scenario, what if the officers see the guy rooting around in a truck and call out to him. In surprise, he turns around with a gun. It is acceptable for the officers to shoot? My answer: of course not to either scenario. I think the quick trigger, in and of itself, even if not part of a no knock warrant, is a violation of the cops' duty to the public.  

[Brisketexan 105509]

12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

 

Ok, I lied. One last post on this:

First, I absolutely agree the no knock warrants are a problem.  Glad we agree on that. Where we appear to differ is that you see one problem, whereas I see many. Six seconds from identifying yourself as officers to firing should be unacceptable in almost any scenario. Let's say these officers are walking down the street and a man standing behind his truck pulls out a gun. Now, like here, the gun isn't actually pointed at the officers. Is it acceptable in that scenario for the officers to shoot? Slightly different scenario, what if the officers see the guy rooting around in a truck and call out to him. In surprise, he turns around with a gun. It is acceptable for the officers to shoot? My answer: of course not to either scenario. I think the quick trigger, in and of itself, even if not part of a no knock warrant, is a violation of the cops' duty to the public.  

You're right on both counts.  But I'll tell you this -- I was pulled over by a trooper when I was a college student on a way back from a hunting trip, driving my little japanese hatchback.  He could see various bags in the back, and asked me to open the hatch.  I told him NOPE, I won't do it.  You could see him getting ready to whoop ass.  I then said "but here are the keys, YOU can open it.  I'm not going anywhere near that, because there are three shotguns on top."

I won't go anywhere near a gun if I'm near a cop.  Because even at 19, I knew they were murdery.

[elfenix 34367]

On 2/6/2022 at 10:41 AM, TwiceHorn said:

Not defending it, per se, but if you are fair-minded about it, you can see why it exists.

The Supreme Court gets a lot of shit for "inventing" qualified immunity, but without it, there would be absolute immunity.

It does need some serious recalibration, though.

also invented

[Guest Lobo]

38 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

What if - and believe me this is hypothetical - but what if there was a space between "shoot first within 6 seconds" and "wait to be shot at first"?

I dunno, I guess.  Listen, I'm gonna go.  It's been really nice talking with you.  Good luck with your extrajudicial murders...I hope they go really well.  

[52-80 19277]

12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

 

Ok, I lied. One last post on this:

First, I absolutely agree the no knock warrants are a problem.  Glad we agree on that. Where we appear to differ is that you see one problem, whereas I see many. Six seconds from identifying yourself as officers to firing should be unacceptable in almost any scenario.

(1) Let's say these officers are walking down the street and a man standing behind his truck pulls out a gun. Now, like here, the gun isn't actually pointed at the officers. Is it acceptable in that scenario for the officers to shoot?

(2) Slightly different scenario, what if the officers see the guy rooting around in a truck and call out to him. In surprise, he turns around with a gun. It is acceptable for the officers to shoot? My answer: of course not to either scenario. I think the quick trigger, in and of itself, even if not part of a no knock warrant, is a violation of the cops' duty to the public.  

First I'm glad we're atleast discussing in earnest.  The other chuckleheads I literally never engage yet they keep tugging away.

1. The scenario you posed is drastically different. There is no world where a cop patrolling the street is operating under the same mode of response as busting down a door. There's no grounds for them to anticipate being attacked.  A no-knock warrant presumes an extreme level of caution and danger.  (And to fully pulverize the horse, those authorizing this presumption needs to be wholly accountable if its anything short of Chapo Guzman territory).  The short answer is NO.

2. You wouldn't try this in court on that written description alone would you? You'd view the tapes. You'd examine the manners of both parties. You'd judge the clarity of the command. You'd see if there's reasonable indicators of suspicion and intent.  You would be nuts to provide a definitive answer in this scenario.  This is a resounding MAYBE.

The 6 seconds you cite obscures half of the context.  They didnt stroll into a domestic call, see a sleeping guy, and pop him 6 seconds later.  They went in under high suspicion and alert, saw a gun raised, and shot back.  If they were rightly and incontestably instructed to bust a stronghold of Chapo and were greeted with a shotgun at the door, even 1 second is justified.

It is the originating scenario that is the determinant, not the latency.

 

[TexasEd 8077]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

What if - and believe me this is hypothetical - but what if there was a space between "shoot first within 6 seconds" and "wait to be shot at first"?

Furtive movement

 

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Ok, I lied. One last post on this:

First, I absolutely agree the no knock warrants are a problem.  Glad we agree on that. Where we appear to differ is that you see one problem, whereas I see many. Six seconds from identifying yourself as officers to firing should be unacceptable in almost any scenario. Let's say these officers are walking down the street and a man standing behind his truck pulls out a gun. Now, like here, the gun isn't actually pointed at the officers. Is it acceptable in that scenario for the officers to shoot? Slightly different scenario, what if the officers see the guy rooting around in a truck and call out to him. In surprise, he turns around with a gun. It is acceptable for the officers to shoot? My answer: of course not to either scenario. I think the quick trigger, in and of itself, even if not part of a no knock warrant, is a violation of the cops' duty to the public.  

I was just getting my rifle out to take into the shop for a new scope bore sight 

but again, furtive movement

[Dahobbs 17757]

1 hour ago, 52-80 said:

First I'm glad we're atleast discussing in earnest.  The other chuckleheads I literally never engage yet they keep tugging away.

1. The scenario you posed is drastically different. There is no world where a cop patrolling the street is operating under the same mode of response as busting down a door. There's no grounds for them to anticipate being attacked.  A no-knock warrant presumes an extreme level of caution and danger.  (And to fully pulverize the horse, those authorizing this presumption needs to be wholly accountable if its anything short of Chapo Guzman territory).  The short answer is NO.

2. You wouldn't try this in court on that written description alone would you? You'd view the tapes. You'd examine the manners of both parties. You'd judge the clarity of the command. You'd see if there's reasonable indicators of suspicion and intent.  You would be nuts to provide a definitive answer in this scenario.  This is a resounding MAYBE.

The 6 seconds you cite obscures half of the context.  They didnt stroll into a domestic call, see a sleeping guy, and pop him 6 seconds later.  They went in under high suspicion and alert, saw a gun raised, and shot back.  If they were rightly and incontestably instructed to bust a stronghold of Chapo and were greeted with a shotgun at the door, even 1 second is justified.

It is the originating scenario that is the determinant, not the latency.

 

I don't think your analysis holds up if it is a random citizen doing the shooting and not a cop. I think we'd call that murder in either scenario 1 or scenario 2. And I think cops should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. That's my problem. I don't care that the cops were on high alert. I don't care that they went in expecting a fight. I really don't . Their job is to protect the public, not by judge, jury and executioner. They have to put the public before themselves. They shouldn't get to shoot someone just because it seemed possible at the time that the person might become a threat. 

[FartingMonk 3608]

Ok.  I understand the intent of no knocks.  It's to give the cops the advantage of not letting the suspects flush drugs.  But holy fuck your Intel better be correct.  You better 100 fucking percent be right you got the right house and the right suspects.  This is complete travesty I have a living room gun.  A kitchen gun.  A bedroom gun. And that's just so I can retreat to grab my shotgun and put slugs into you.  If your kicking down my door at 3 AM I don't give a fuck who you are.  You're gonna enjoy some lead.  The fact that we are giving MPD the benefit of the doubt is fucking bullshit.  This was a massive Intel failure.  Cops need to be held accountable.  The city executed an innocent man

[52-80 19277]

11 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't think your analysis holds up if it is a random citizen doing the shooting and not a cop. I think we'd call that murder in either scenario 1 or scenario 2. And I think cops should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. That's my problem. I don't care that the cops were on high alert. I don't care that they went in expecting a fight. I really don't . Their job is to protect the public, not by judge, jury and executioner. They have to put the public before themselves. They shouldn't get to shoot someone just because it seemed possible at the time that the person might become a threat. 

that's simply not true.  and the reductive scenario strips away all real life nuances and cause and effect.  don't we go have a judicial system to try shootings with police and with private citizens alike?  didn't we have 100 page threads about different shootings where we debate context, inferred motive and intent? 

scenario 2 is chicken and egg.  the cop would need to prove evidence beyond all doubt for his suspicion to be raised to warrant the snap response.  theres no world so binary you could answer with a single broadbrush heuristic ("if not shot at first -> murder").

[Dahobbs 17757]

2 hours ago, 52-80 said:

that's simply not true.  and the reductive scenario strips away all real life nuances and cause and effect.  don't we go have a judicial system to try shootings with police and with private citizens alike?  didn't we have 100 page threads about different shootings where we debate context, inferred motive and intent? 

scenario 2 is chicken and egg.  the cop would need to prove evidence beyond all doubt for his suspicion to be raised to warrant the snap response.  theres no world so binary you could answer with a single broadbrush heuristic ("if not shot at first -> murder").

Great. Now look at your post that I've been responding too. Have I not been pointing out this exact issue with your "the shoot itself was good" bit? You're dividing things too finely to try and say the shoot was good but not some other element. The shoot wasn't good. The fuck up on the warrant wasn't good. And the no knock wasn't good. 

As to the second bit, I don't think you get that I was proposing a rule specifically for no knock warrants. I think they deserve a special rule because they are so prone to abuse and fuck ups. 

[52-80 19277]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Great. Now look at your post that I've been responding too. Have I not been pointing out this exact issue with your "the shoot itself was good" bit? You're dividing things too finely to try and say the shoot was good but not some other element. The shoot wasn't good. The fuck up on the warrant wasn't good. And the no knock wasn't good.

Where is the inconsistency in principle applied across the real life raid, and the hypothetical pick up truck guy?

With the truck, the officer has to make the determination whether there is suspicion and danger  (was there blood on the truck? is there a slumped body in the cabin?).

With the raid, the officers are placed under presumption of danger.  (do they ready their guns during a welfare check?)

 

[Captainant 27923]

52-80, doing a great demo of what pounding the table looks like when you don't have good facts or law to pound.

45 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

With the raid, the officers are placed under presumption of danger.  (do they ready their guns during a welfare check?)

and also - it was unanimously MPD's choice to put those officers into danger. Not the dead citizen, not the original requesters of the search, not the judge issuing the warrant. I don't understand why you're giving the cops a free pass on this. They CHOSE to send those officers in guns blazing. Stop ignoring this inconvenient fact.

[Dahobbs 17757]

8 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Where is the inconsistency in principle applied across the real life raid, and the hypothetical pick up truck guy?

With the truck, the officer has to make the determination whether there is suspicion and danger  (was there blood on the truck? is there a slumped body in the cabin?).

With the raid, the officers are placed under presumption of danger.  (do they ready their guns during a welfare check?)

 

Let me help you:

On 2/4/2022 at 10:45 AM, 52-80 said:

Gun clearly visible in the confrontation.  The shooting, in this scenario, is justified.

As you have said, this "reductive scenario strips away all real life nuances and cause and effect".

------------------------------

The inconsistency is your approach. In one case, you remove all context and conclude that a clearly visible gun means a justified shooting. In another case, you say you cannot reduce a scenario to such a level and make a conclusion. I've been trying to make that latter point to you 

More importantly, it seems like you're basing your reasoning on maximizing officer safety as to opposed to service to the public. You state "with the raid, the officers are placed under a presumption of danger" as if this validates their response to fire quickly. It doesn't.

(1) I don't care if the officers are a presumption of danger and neither should you. Their job is to serve the public and the public should be prioritized. Even if they have the right house and the right guy, they still don't get to bust in and shoot someone within 6 seconds. 

(2) The officers for the "raid" were prepared. They had superior numbers, training, and the element of surprise. The person in the home had none of those things. We should expect officers in that scenario to be more wary of discharging their firearms. They know the person inside isn't going to know what is happening. They know it'll take a few seconds for the person to adjust. They know if that person does become dangerously hostile that they'll be able to kill or incapacitate him quickly. Ergo, no reason for the officers to act hasty and fire at the first sign of a gun. Again, their job is to serve the public. Not to neutralize it. Right now, the person in house, even if the cops were at the right house and had the right person, has not been found guilty of anything. 

[TwiceHorn 31663]

20 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Why do you think it has to be one or the other? I think the person that approved the raid was wrong. I think the cops that executed the raid were wrong. You're making this more complicated than it has to be for reasons that are beyond me. 

Let me answer the last question first:

Q. Should cops be muzzled from shooting in response to gun, in the context of a dangerous bust?

A. Cops should avoid the use of lethal force even to the extent of putting themselves in danger. A cop's duty is to the citizens first. Only when no other option is available should a officer use lethal force. To the extent cops conduct no knock raids, I think that means waiting until they are actually fired upon before returning fire. They have to give the citizen as much opportunity as possible to orient themselves to the situation and deescalate. And hey, maybe if that was the required procedure, cops would be less gung-ho about doing no knock raids in the first place. 

First question:

Q.  What do you charge the shooting cop with?  What's his/her motivation?  And the rest of the squad: accessory? 

Your question presumes that the conduct is criminal. It can be wrongful (and thus open up liability to a lawsuit) but not necessarily criminal. That said, this event seems to fit manslaughter pretty well, but keep in mind I don't know Minnesota's criminal statutes that well.

First Degree Manslaughter (fits less well, and very strangely worded):

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.20

Second Degree Manslaughter (good fit):

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.205

Good analysis.  I noticed the MN homicide statutes were kind of bizarre in connection with another one of these.  So damned many I can't remember which.

[TwiceHorn 31663]

17 hours ago, elfenix said:

also invented

All law is invented.  Unless you're a natural law freak.

[52-80 19277]

12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The inconsistency is your approach. In one case, you remove all context and conclude that a clearly visible gun means a justified shooting. In another case, you say you cannot reduce a scenario to such a level and make a conclusion. I've been trying to make that latter point to you 

I said you needed the context around the response.  In the actual shooting, the context is the raid.  In your fictitious example, theres not enough context to support the response. 

In other words - i should ask you "in scenario #2 there a cause for the officer to be suspicious?".  If you described fully "its a bright day, the guy was in hunting gear, theres a hog in his truckbed" then no, a cop should not be surprised to see a rifle or expect it to be used against him.   This hypothetical doesn't just exist in a vacuum.

 

12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

More importantly, it seems like you're basing your reasoning on maximizing officer safety as to opposed to service to the public. You state "with the raid, the officers are placed under a presumption of danger" as if this validates their response to fire quickly. It doesn't.

(1) I don't care if the officers are a presumption of danger and neither should you. Their job is to serve the public and the public should be prioritized. Even if they have the right house and the right guy, they still don't get to bust in and shoot someone within 6 seconds. 

Nope.  I don't believe in blanket favoritism at this level of generalization.  The police should be resourced appropriately to deal with each task.  A traffic stop doesn't justify guns blazing and ham-handedness.  A bust of known, proven, dangerous individuals, the police should be equipped with the actions to respond to that threat. 

If there's a narco hideout, sending 2 meter maids in with batons is not serving the public interest.

 

12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

(2) The officers for the "raid" were prepared. They had superior numbers, training, and the element of surprise. The person in the home had none of those things. We should expect officers in that scenario to be more wary of discharging their firearms. They know the person inside isn't going to know what is happening. They know it'll take a few seconds for the person to adjust. They know if that person does become dangerously hostile that they'll be able to kill or incapacitate him quickly. Ergo, no reason for the officers to act hasty and fire at the first sign of a gun. Again, their job is to serve the public. Not to neutralize it. Right now, the person in house, even if the cops were at the right house and had the right person, has not been found guilty of anything. 

This falls on the planning and the planners of the raid.  I dont see what you're trying to argue here, including post-hoc status of person in house, especially when we're all unanimously against these operations.

[Dahobbs 17757]

2 hours ago, 52-80 said:

This falls on the planning and the planners of the raid.  I dont see what you're trying to argue here, including post-hoc status of person in house, especially when we're all unanimously against these operations.

My argument is that fault lies with both the planners and the people that conducted it. 

The planners (I point out that you make the rather odd assumption that these are different from the officers conducting raid) should have double checked their information and confirmed a no knock was absolutely necessary. And, frankly, in my view, no knock warrants shouldn't be allowed at all, but that is a different matter. 

The officers that conducted the raid should have exercised better judgment by withholding the use of lethal force until absolutely necessary (i.e., actual under attack). The officers knew that the person in the house would be surprised. The officers knew that they had the tactical advantage and could end any hostile threat instantly. Knowing all that, they should erred on the side of not reacting to any potential threat with lethal force until it was clear there was other choice. Shooting a man within 6 seconds of entering just because he had a gun and not because he pointed the gun at them, much less fired at them was wrong. That was their mistake. Yes, it sucks that were put in that situation in the first place. But they compounded that mistake by prioritizing their own safety at the expense of the public's. That should not be acceptable. 

Edited February 8, 2022 by Dahobbs

[wildcat09 29449]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

All law is invented.  Unless you're a natural law freak.