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

[Dahobbs 17,692]

33 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

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. 

Wow, that last paragraph got jacked up. 

The officers that conducted the raid should have exercised better judgment by withholding the use of lethal force until absolutely necessary (i.e., under actual 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 have erred on the side of not reacting to any potential threat with lethal force until it was clear there was no other choice. Shooting a man within 6 seconds of entering just because he had a gun (not pointed at them, much less fired) 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. 

[52-80 19,263]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

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. 

There was no such assumption.  It's the responsibility of the person that matters, which does not preclude their physical role.  The person(s) who planned and advocated for it, whether he was back at the station or in the van or in the bust, that should be the guiltiest. 

You said planners should have checked their information; and NKA should basically never be used.  I don't see where we disagree.

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

 

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. 

You make a firearm confrontation sound like a chess game.  What's the operating window here for determining no other choice, when a gun is picked up and raised at you (which it was)?  If you think 6 seconds is rapid, in a critically escalated situation (for which the veracity belongs to planning parties), how long do you wait exactly?

 

[Captainant 27,826]

17 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

You make a firearm confrontation sound like a chess game.  What's the operating window here for determining no other choice, when a gun is picked up and raised at you (which it was)?  If you think 6 seconds is rapid, in a critically escalated situation (for which the veracity belongs to planning parties), how long do you wait exactly?

If the cops didn't want to be in a firearm confrontation, perhaps they shouldn't have started one by unlawfully breaking into a man's apartment in the dead of night without announcing their presence as police?

Or because they were ordered to do so, is your argument that those human beings had no agency or ability to use their own judgement as to how to best approach a potentially volatile situation?

[Dahobbs 17,692]

49 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

There was no such assumption.  It's the responsibility of the person that matters, which does not preclude their physical role.  The person(s) who planned and advocated for it, whether he was back at the station or in the van or in the bust, that should be the guiltiest. 

You said planners should have checked their information; and NKA should basically never be used.  I don't see where we disagree.

I think we've established that we agree here. 

Quote

You make a firearm confrontation sound like a chess game.  What's the operating window here for determining no other choice, when a gun is picked up and raised at you (which it was)?  If you think 6 seconds is rapid, in a critically escalated situation (for which the veracity belongs to planning parties), how long do you wait exactly?

I've already stated that I believe in these situations (no knock warrant), given the unprepared state of the target and the prepared state of the police, that lethal force should be held back by the police until under actual attack by lethal force (e.g., being shot at ). I recognize that puts officers in a tough position. But that is their job. And they placed themselves in that position. I think it is unreasonable to put a lay civilian in a situation where he has instantly process that the people breaking in and attacking him are actually the police without at the very least giving that person every opportunity to orientate himself and comply with police request. Any officer executing a no knock warrant that does anything less, in my view, is violating their duty to the public and should be condemned. I get that you feel sorry for the rank and file that are just following orders. I don't. I expect more of them. 

Edited February 8, 2022 by Dahobbs

[52-80 19,263]

18 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I've already stated that I believe in these situations (no knock warrant), given the unprepared state of the target and the prepared state of the police, that lethal force should be held back by the police until under actual attack by lethal force (e.g., being shot at). I recognize that puts officers in a tough position. But that is their job. And they placed themselves in that position. I think it is unreasonable to put a lay civilian in a situation where he has instantly process that the people breaking in and attacking him are actually the police without at the very least giving that person every opportunity to orientate himself and comply with police request. Any officer executing a no knock warrant that does anything less, in my view, is violating their duty to the public and should be condemned. I get that you feel sorry for the rank and file that are just following orders. I don't. I expect more of them. 

I think your suggestion is unrealistic and - while none of us can prove it - it's likely not the trained practice anywhere else in the world (the response under duress, not beat patrol). 

Here is example of a split-second escalation, totally unexpected.  If they were conditioned to hesitate, a further split second and you very well might have a dead body.

I don't have fondness or affinity for the police.  I simply think your asking for their having Navy SEAL level of tactical precision is unreasonable. 

[Brisketexan 105,438]

I think your suggestion is unrealistic and - while none of us can prove it - it's likely not the trained practice anywhere else in the world (the response under duress, not beat patrol). 
Here is example of a split-second escalation, totally unexpected.  If they were conditioned to hesitate, a further split second and you very well might have a dead body.
I don't have fondness or affinity for the police.  I simply think your asking for their having Navy SEAL level of tactical precision is unreasonable. 

Yet that’s what they demand of the rest of us. Comply immediately or die.
And they want Navy SEAL-level rules of engagement, they goddamn well need to bring commensurate skill to the table.
Don’t play Billy Badass unless you can BE Billy Badass.

[Dahobbs 17,692]

8 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

I don't have fondness or affinity for the police.  I simply think your asking for their having Navy SEAL level of tactical precision is unreasonable. 

If they can't do it, then they shouldn't intentionally put themselves and the public in situations where they have to. If they are going to put people in that situation, then they damn well be able to respond with that sort of tactical precision. They don't get to force a lay person to respond perfectly or die and then just fucking shrug their shoulders when it happens. 

[52-80 19,263]

17 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

If they can't do it, then they shouldn't intentionally put themselves and the public in situations where they have to. If they are going to put people in that situation,...

We've already been through it.  We need to be precise on the "they", because it's not each and everyone one of them. 

17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yet that’s what they demand of the rest of us. Comply immediately or die.
And they want Navy SEAL-level rules of engagement, they goddamn well need to bring commensurate skill to the table.

This is a broadbrush generalization again.  That's never a good thing.  This was an extraordinary situation, and should scrutinized with the level of care and justice it deserves.

Let's be realistic, you and I (both minorities) are never going to be subject to this.  We have a 0.000000001% of being killed for pulling our hunting rifle out at an inopportune moment.  This country of 330M has a shooting/whatever incidence rate commensurate to its crime rate.  It's not perfect, but it's commensurate. 

This implied notion that the entire police force needs Special Forces discipline because otherwise they are on a martial law rampage against the whole populace is sensationalist. 

[Dahobbs 17,692]

7 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

We've already been through it.  We need to be precise on the "they", because it's not each and everyone one of them. 

This is a broadbrush generalization again.  That's never a good thing.  This was an extraordinary situation, and should scrutinized with the level of care and justice it deserves.

Let's be realistic, you and I (both minorities) are never going to be subject to this.  We have a 0.000000001% of being killed for pulling our hunting rifle out at an inopportune moment.  This country of 330M has a shooting/whatever incidence rate commensurate to its crime rate.  It's not perfect, but it's commensurate. 

This implied notion that the entire police force needs Special Forces discipline because otherwise they are on a martial law rampage against the whole populace is sensationalist. 

Yeah, we just aren't going to agree here. You're dug in. I'm dug in. I'm good with you being wrong. 

[Brisketexan 105,438]

21 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

This implied notion that the entire police force needs Special Forces discipline because otherwise they are on a martial law rampage against the whole populace is sensationalist. 

Nope.  I suggest a simple rule.  If you wanna play Special Forces (busting down doors like it's fucking Fallujah), then you best BE Special Forces, and be held to the standard of Special Forces.  After all, we citizens are held to that standard.  The deceased here apparently had the obligation to assess "friend or foe," and make a life-death decision in mere seconds while he was barely conscious.  

Cops hold us to that standard.  We should, at the VERY least, hold them to the same standard.

Which they can't meet, because they are cowards who like to play soldier, but avoid all the consequences of their games.

[staboner 4,988]

On 2/5/2022 at 3:45 AM, 52-80 said:

His having legal ownership to a gun has nothing to do with it.  This is literally *6 seconds* after they announced themselves and bust into the apartment.  Gun clearly visible in the confrontation.  The shooting, in this scenario, is justified.

 

The problem is this scenario should not even have happened.  I don't know the backgrounds of this case, but no-knock warrant just seems a righteous mess.  The police shouldn't shock-barge into a place like this.

are you by chance the reincarnate of the the poster Hellraiser97? i think that was his handle. 

[staboner 4,988]

On 2/5/2022 at 5:34 AM, BabaYaga said:

And hard as hell to get the go-ahead for.  

absolutely should be almost impossible to get one. it violates a number of laws and basic freedoms, puts everyone in unnecessary danger, and is something that can be solved by other means. 

some time ago trying to explain to my family overseas that American police can kick your door down, guns drawn etc., and I remember just getting blank faces. there is no connection there for them to even begin to understand why this is happening

war on fucking drugs man

[staboner 4,988]

1 hour ago, 52-80 said:

We've already been through it.  We need to be precise on the "they", because it's not each and everyone one of them. 

This is a broadbrush generalization again.  That's never a good thing.  This was an extraordinary situation, and should scrutinized with the level of care and justice it deserves.

Let's be realistic, you and I (both minorities) are never going to be subject to this.  We have a 0.000000001% of being killed for pulling our hunting rifle out at an inopportune moment.  This country of 330M has a shooting/whatever incidence rate commensurate to its crime rate.  It's not perfect, but it's commensurate. 

This implied notion that the entire police force needs Special Forces discipline because otherwise they are on a martial law rampage against the whole populace is sensationalist. 

the police - top to bottom - just need to actually be held responsible for their actions and everything would eventually work itself out. accountability and all. 

[Brisketexan 105,438]

the police - top to bottom - just need to actually be held responsible for their actions and everything would eventually work itself out. accountability and all. 

Silly rabbit. Accountability is for citizens, and the consequences are death (“comply immediately or be shot”). It’s not for cops. They are our betters, and are not subject to the rules and laws that govern us peasants.

This is the ethos that we are fighting against. You can see why we’re losing.

[TwiceHorn 31,554]

9 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

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.

Yep, as posted upthread, in the usual case, the ones executing the warrant are mostly the same as the ones obtaining the warrant (there are probably a few extra bodies on the execution team, but the ones making all the decisions and providing the information  would usually be there).

A supervisory officer probably signs off on the warrant at a high level, and a judge actually grants/signs the warrant on proof of probable cause and proper scope.  But they are mostly at the mercy of the investigators that propose and provide the affidavit/information for the warrant.   That is, if it the information is lies or dogshit, neither the supervisory officer nor the judge necessarily knows that, and would be liable only if they did.

However, because the police like to be so military, they should probably implement a military style of promotion and retention:  a big fuckup happens on your watch, in your command, you are "fitted and retained," or outright dismissed.

Edited February 9, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31,554]

6 hours ago, Captainant said:

If the cops didn't want to be in a firearm confrontation, perhaps they shouldn't have started one by unlawfully breaking into a man's apartment in the dead of night without announcing their presence as police?

Or because they were ordered to do so, is your argument that those human beings had no agency or ability to use their own judgement as to how to best approach a potentially volatile situation?

As stated, cops executing a warrant, most of them, are not ordered to do anything with respect to that warrant.  They sought the warrant, the provided the information to obtain the warrant, they asked that it be a no-knock warrant.

Some higher-level authorities may have some amount of responsibility for a fucked-up warrant, but the vast majority of it lies with the officers banging down the door.

The reason I know this without knowing many details of this situation is that to obtain a warrant, officers have to testify, usually by affidavit, on personal knowledge of the facts giving rise to probable cause, with some limited reliance on information obtained from third parties (usually hearsay).  That is a constitutional requirement.

So it's always the investigating officers that "get" the warrant and propose its terms to supervisors and judges.  And it's almost always those same officers executing the warrant because of their involvement in the case.

It is possible that some detective cooks up a bullshit warrant and then lets younger, bigger guys on his team bust down the door while he hangs back in the hall or the yard, and the guy pulling the trigger is wholly ignorant of the bullshit.  So, in that sense there may be "orders followed."  But generally it's not some senior dude back at HQ or a substation pulling all the strings.

Edited February 9, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Captainant 27,826]

17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

As stated, cops executing a warrant, most of them, are not ordered to do anything with respect to that warrant.  They sought the warrant, the provided the information to obtain the warrant, they asked that it be a no-knock warrant.

Some higher-level authorities may have some amount of responsibility for a fucked-up warrant, but the vast majority of it lies with the officers banging down the door.

The reason I know this without knowing many details of this situation is that to obtain a warrant, officers have to testify, usually by affidavit, on personal knowledge of the facts giving rise to probable cause, with some limited reliance on information obtained from third parties (usually hearsay).  That is a constitutional requirement.

So it's always the investigating officers that "get" the warrant and propose its terms to supervisors and judges.  And it's almost always those same officers executing the warrant because of their involvement in the case.

It is possible that some detective cooks up a bullshit warrant and then lets younger, bigger guys on his team bust down the door while he hangs back in the hall or the yard, and the guy pulling the trigger is wholly ignorant of the bullshit.  So, in that sense there may be "orders followed."  But generally it's not some senior dude back at HQ or a substation pulling all the strings.

In this specific case that actually happened and resulted in yet another dead citizen killed by the hands of MPD, the reporting is that St Paul PD wanted a normal warrant, and MPD rejected it and "insisted" that it be no-knock.

So it definitely seems like they chose it to be a violent, armed, dead of night encounter. MPD intervened to make sure they'd get their hunting license.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,977]

I think only allowing state level law enforcement agencies to carry out no knock warrants could be a good first step towards reform. Also, the investigating officers seeking the warrant have to be first through the door and unarmed. Also, also, state level approval must be granted, not some local good old boy judge. Maybe that would cut down on BS no knock warrants while still allowing them in cases where they are truly needed.

[Neonmoon 38,130]

13 hours ago, staboner said:

the police - top to bottom - just need to actually be held responsible for their actions and everything would eventually work itself out. accountability and all. 

Ding ding ding 

Take away qualified immunity and this will sort itself out. 

[bluto 4,943]

Latest news on the sitch

https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/affidavit-amir-lockes-cousin-arrested-in-connection-to-st-paul-homicide-was-target-of-search-when-locke-was-shot/

[Captainant 27,826]

6 minutes ago, bluto said:

Latest news on the sitch

https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/affidavit-amir-lockes-cousin-arrested-in-connection-to-st-paul-homicide-was-target-of-search-when-locke-was-shot/

Jeeze. They were looking for a 17 year old, and executed three search warrants in parallel trying to find him. And didn't find who they were looking for. And shot a guy with a gun pointed at the ground with his finger outside the trigger guard. If I recall from another surly thread, a low ready isn't enough for us mere citizens to justify deadly force...

But yeah these cops that insisted on a no knock and wouldn't assist otherwise had no option but to defend themselves from a situation they created amirite???

[BabaYaga 15,328]

14 hours ago, staboner said:

absolutely should be almost impossible to get one. it violates a number of laws and basic freedoms, puts everyone in unnecessary danger, and is something that can be solved by other means. 

some time ago trying to explain to my family overseas that American police can kick your door down, guns drawn etc., and I remember just getting blank faces. there is no connection there for them to even begin to understand why this is happening

war on fucking drugs man

Besides virtually impossible (there are a few, isolated incidences where they might be justified, but very, very rare), there needs to be a full discovery on evidence, sources, and justifications. 

Not this opaque BS we are seeing with the Ukraine where they say "well, the IC said something is going to happen"......and the reporters say show us the evidence?

• "we just did.  The IC's said so"
• Reporter:  That's not evidence, that is just you making an assertion?  
• "yes it is, and you can't see it"

That "trust us" shit doesn't fly anymore......especially on these.  If you come down the line and finally need one, the backstory had better be air tight....sufficient for a judge or higher up to risk their career signing off on.

[Nivek 16,992]

Slow processing disorder, while not recognized officially as a learning disorder yet, can impact people and their reaction times to situations.

Contrast that with hopped up on adrenaline folks, and you have a situation where some whose actions seem to themselves to be patient and another who perceives the same situation at a blinding speed.

Now add in the grogginess of being awakened at night and that only exacerbates the potential difference.

Stop comparing the cops to Special Forces units. Those guys have much higher standards and accountability than does law enforcement.

If we start hearing about them whining about how they are in danger than they need to understand three things, 1) that is the job, 2) that is why we buy you body armor, 3) modify behavior to minimize the danger.

I am struck by that video of the guy who was indiscriminately shot at by the cops in an unmarked van. When the dude returned fire he stopped immediately upon hearing they were cops. He was on the floor, unarmed, and not a threat. Officer fuckface runs up and kicks him in the face repeatedly. That man showed huge restraint in not trying to defend himself, not knowing if they would murder him there or stop kicking. Had he done so, they would have likely killed him for furtive movements.

The Tuttle case here in Houston, the Beaumont cop with the ar-15 “you’re fucked” who was giving conflicting commands to a guy shoots an unarmed man on the floor of a hotel. Garner, strangled to death by multiple cops for amusement because they wanted to test themselves against an older physically bigger but out of shape guy so they could feel cool about bringing him down.

There is little benefit of the doubt to be given. Especially when we have numerous examples of how they treat cops who do the correct thing, which usually entails running them off.

So to 52-80s comment above. I think an police overhaul, reform would invite the people who are in it for the right reasons back. And help run out those who are there to cosplay call of duty in god mode,

[DigglerontheHoof 21,255]

On 2/8/2022 at 4:31 PM, 52-80 said:

I think your suggestion is unrealistic and - while none of us can prove it - it's likely not the trained practice anywhere else in the world (the response under duress, not beat patrol). 

Here is example of a split-second escalation, totally unexpected.  If they were conditioned to hesitate, a further split second and you very well might have a dead body.

I don't have fondness or affinity for the police.  I simply think your asking for their having Navy SEAL level of tactical precision is unreasonable. 

Dead cops>>>>>>>>>>>>than innocent sleeping dead civilians.