Minneapolis ... Again

[sportage]

The Minn interim police chief said "WHEN THERE IS A GUN EMERGING IN YOUR DIRECTION YOU'RE FORCED TO MAKE A SPLIT DECISION."

So I'm thinking... Are you talking about he cop, or the victim???

Im against defunding the police, most people are against defunding the police, but in the case of Minnesota... I think they need to defund the police.

 

[Dave_5k]

St Paul police claim they have executed no no-knock warrants in over 5 years as they are high risk. Directly adjacent Minneapolis does one every other night on average (or more, as that counts only the unsealed raids), and outright refused to execute this search warrant unless it was revised to be no-knock. And this every other night SWAT-style raid has been ongoing for the last two years - all after the MN mayor previously claimed (lied) to have banned the practice in all but “exigent” circumstances.

After this latest debacle, mayor is now claiming to have suspended all no-knocks.

This looked more like a (sloppy) SEAL team night assault on a terrorist compound than a police search warrant.

 

[Jaskalas]

And already talking about charges ...

Shooting a "suspect" who is holding a gun, and maybe moving it. Possibly towards someone?
Completely legal and expected.

Placing that "suspect" in such a position in the first place? Thereby forcing this outcome?
It is by the book, therefore I expect it is perfectly legal, but it needs to change. These home invasions are acts of murder and they must be stopped.

 

[woolfe9998]

Kim Potter trial going on now. She just agreed to testify.

That Rittenhouse lawyer seems to have set a new precedent.

She was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree shortly after this post back in December.

Which is not really a surprise. When she said she mistook a pistol for a taser, which is exactly what happened in the Oscar Grant case, she essentially confessed to manslaughter. I'm not really sure what there was for the jury to deliberate over. She should have just plead guilty.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Have you ever been suddenly awoken from a deep sleep and not been at least partially disoriented?

When someone is forcing their way into an area you consider to be 'safe' and screaming, yelling, while you're partially asleep, what would you do?

And how the hell did they get a key?

 

[shortylickens]

Have you ever been suddenly awoken from a deep sleep and not been at least partially disoriented?

When someone is forcing their way into an area you consider to be 'safe' and screaming, yelling, while you're partially asleep, what would you do?

And how the hell did they get a key?

Landlord?

 

[Dave_5k]

The Minn interim police chief said "WHEN THERE IS A GUN EMERGING IN YOUR DIRECTION YOU'RE FORCED TO MAKE A SPLIT DECISION."

So I'm thinking... Are you talking about he cop, or the victim???

Im against defunding the police, most people are against defunding the police, but in the case of Minnesota... I think they need to defund the police.

Minneapolis police appear to be systemically broken beyond reform.
- Making a game out of sniping unarmed non-violent protestors, and bystanders on their own porches, with “less lethal” rounds, check for multiple squads of officers
- assaulting unresisting suspects, including those that committed no crime, check
- Assaulting press filming and conducting interviews, check
- Slashing tires of media and protestors, check

Number of Minneapolis officers fired or charged for any of the above, all caught on video: zero.

None of these can be even claimed as individual bad apples, they all involved multiple officers with none voicing concern. At least two of the SWAT team on this latest execution raid were also participants in citizen sniping and a subsequent assault. https://www.kare11.com/article/news...rrest/89-ba2020cd-8d9a-4cd3-815e-01f2b428f14c

 

[feralkid]

Im against defunding the police, most people are against defunding the police, but in the case of Minnesota... I think they need to defund the police.

The whole State?

 

[ondma]

Going to take a somewhat different view here. The problems to me are first the use of no knock warrants, and secondly the ubiquitous gun culture.
I will lay the majority of the blame on the no knock warrant. It is just an invitation to a dangerous response both from the police and the person's home being entered. And yes, we have the "right" to bear arms, but my contention is that many more deaths are caused by suicide, accidents, mistaken identity, mistaken confrontations with the police, etc. than are saved by defending one's self from the boogeyman "home invasion" so feared by the gun holders.

Basically, once you had an armed citizen awoken in the middle of the night by police using a no knock warrant, there was going to be no good outcome. Other than not using a no knock warrant, I am not sure what the police were supposed to do. My understanding is that the victim had a gun in his hand. Ideally, yes, the police would have given him a chance to drop the weapon, but under the duress of the situation, not sure that is going to happen often.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Other than not using a no knock warrant, I am not sure what the police were supposed to do.

My understanding is that this guy was not their target and their target was not at the address.

So, intelligence and surveillance. Make sure the subject of the warrant is there before you act and set up and wait for them to appear.

Patience and diligence instead of shock and awe.

 

[ondma]

My understanding is that this guy was not their target and their target was not at the address.

So, intelligence and surveillance. Make sure the subject of the warrant is there before you act and set up and wait for them to appear.

Patience and diligence instead of shock and awe.

My understanding is that you are correct. Eerily analogous to the Brianna Taylor case, except in this case the person did apparently have a gun.
I have seen part of the body cam video, and it appears that the person shot was still wrapped up in sheets when he was shot. It did not appear to me he was ready to fire, but if he had a gun, anything can happen.

 

[NWRMidnight]

So I have read thru a lot of the posts here, and I will be honest I am not fully up to speed on this situation. But from the comments being made here, as well as law enforcement response, and the whole "no Knock" warrants, we have a problem.

First, law enforcement believes if a gun is aimed towards you, then they have a split second to react. True, but as some have said, the police have created this situation with "no knock" warrants. Here is the thing.. during a "no knock" warrant, do they make it clear they are the police? Do they know that the residents heard that announcement, or where they sleeping or distracted? etc.. Now, lets say they did hear the announcement that they where the police, and in a perfect world, every resident reacts accordingly and puts down their weapon, or doesn't even go for their gun because they think "it's the police" all is ok, it's not a criminal breaking into their house to rob them, rape them, or murder them. Lets say we get all people trained to respond in such a manner. that they don't react because it's the police.. Sounds like a perfect world.. right? Well yep, it's a perfect world for criminals. Why? Because now all criminals have to do is rush thru the door, announce they are the police... and they just disarmed their victims, which means the criminals now have the upper hand to rob, rape, and possibly kill those they rob all because we the people are expected to disarm when police server "no Knock" warrants and announce they are the police.

I understand the ideology behind "no knock" warrants, and I understand it's the only option to catch some criminals, but they should be limited to only catching criminals of the worst crimes, who are at the top of the most wanted list. I am talking about the crimes that people don't want to talk about. Because all though it helps law enforcement catch such criminals, it puts every innocent person in danger because of the expectation of how we are "expected" to react when they break down the door and announce they are the police. It also makes the 2nd amendment pointless, specially with the current belief that the 2nd amendment is for protecting yourself, your family, and your home, if the very purpose of the 2nd amendment, using that ideology is to protect yourself, your family, and your home, is stripped away by the announcement "police", which in the eyes of the law, strips your ability to protect yourself, family, and home from invaders because they are the police.

Just a thought...

 

[feralkid]

The Minn interim police chief said "WHEN THERE IS A GUN EMERGING IN YOUR DIRECTION YOU'RE FORCED TO MAKE A SPLIT DECISION."

So I'm thinking... Are you talking about he cop, or the victim???

Im against defunding the police, most people are against defunding the police, but in the case of Minnesota... I think they need to defund the police.

The city you are referring to is called Minneapolis.

Minnesota is the State in which it is located.

Thank you!

 

[Dave_5k]

While technically 2021 news, was new to me in looking at the Minneapolis police history:

MPD stop and search black drivers at 29 times the rate of white drivers for equipment violations

MPD stop and search black drivers at 29 times the rate of white drivers for equipment violations. Racial disparities in police stops continue despite pledged reform.

www.kare11.com

Driving while black, nearly 30x as likely to be stopped and searched (for minor or pretextual excuses), welcome to the great new-South city of Minneapolis. Exact figures on SWAT raids aren't available as they apparently aren't required to track them, but those also appear to vastly disproportionately target minorities.

 

[TheVrolok]

No knock warrants need to end, period. Sure, we should observe the results (more hostage taking or fatalities?), but this practice must end.

I am bothered by the constant need to err on the side of law enforcement, "it happened so fast, the officers need to decide if they're making it home that night" etc. It feels odd that our society feels the need to err on the side of group in the position of significant benefit in the balance of power.

Absolutely true, and I think officer safety is incredibly important. Most police officers are fine people who do a good job. However, it just feels so uncomfortable to hear "Well, the officers had to make split second decisions and unfortunately bad things happen" seems to be quite an injustice to an innocent person who didn't get that benefit of the doubt. As I sad above, we need to avoid these situations whenever possible.

 

[pete6032]

I'll be honest if that happened to me when I was asleep my first reaction would be to reach for a weapon, whether its a lamp or laundry basket whatever. There is no way I could go from completely asleep to cognizant enough in 45 seconds to realize its the police and not an invader.

 

[Maxima1]

She was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree shortly after this post back in December.

Which is not really a surprise. When she said she mistook a pistol for a taser, which is exactly what happened in the Oscar Grant case, she essentially confessed to manslaughter. I'm not really sure what there was for the jury to deliberate over. She should have just plead guilty.

Jury got it wrong again. She wasn't aware she drew the handgun, so she was just negligent, not reckless. An element of recklessness is required by both of the manslaughter charges. The prosecution was conflating negligence with recklessness to score woke points.

State v. Frost

State v. Frost - 342 N.W.2d 317

law.justia.com

This is the actual Minnesota case law:

"Recklessness" and "negligence" may be defined in the following manner: A person acts "recklessly" when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the element of an offense exists or will result from his conduct; the risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation. A person acts "negligently" when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the element of an offense exists or will result from his conduct; the risk must be of such a nature and degree that his failure to perceive it involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation. The difference between the terms "recklessly" and *320 "negligently," as thus defined, is one of kind rather than of degree. Each actor creates a risk of harm. The reckless actor is aware of the risk and disregards it; the negligent actor is not aware of the risk but should have been aware of it.

 

[ondma]

Jury got it wrong again. She wasn't aware she drew the handgun, so she was just negligent, not reckless. An element of recklessness is required by both of the manslaughter charges. The prosecution was conflating negligence with recklessness to score woke points.

State v. Frost

State v. Frost - 342 N.W.2d 317

law.justia.com

This is the actual Minnesota case law:

"Recklessness" and "negligence" may be defined in the following manner: A person acts "recklessly" when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the element of an offense exists or will result from his conduct; the risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation. A person acts "negligently" when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the element of an offense exists or will result from his conduct; the risk must be of such a nature and degree that his failure to perceive it involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation. The difference between the terms "recklessly" and *320 "negligently," as thus defined, is one of kind rather than of degree. Each actor creates a risk of harm. The reckless actor is aware of the risk and disregards it; the negligent actor is not aware of the risk but should have been aware of it.

One can quibble about the legal terms, but just intuitively, drawing a gun instead of a taser, and killing someone with it, is more than "negligent", IMO. To me, it is an almost unfathomable mistake for a trained police officer. Since the judge decreased the sentence below the guidelines, she actually got a very minimal sentence. She will be required to serve 16 months, with almost 2 months time already served, so she could be out in slightly over a year.

Ultimately there are no winners in this situation. Wright is still dead, and Potter's life is basically ruined. I feel bad for both families. I think the punishment was appropriate.
Potter could not just be let go, saying, oops, sorry. Accident or not, police have to be held to a higher standard than that. OTOH, I dont know what a longer sentence would have accomplished, other that giving the family some satisfaction.

 

[ivwshane]

One can quibble about the legal terms, but just intuitively, drawing a gun instead of a taser, and killing someone with it, is more than "negligent", IMO. To me, it is an almost unfathomable mistake for a trained police officer. Since the judge decreased the sentence below the guidelines, she actually got a very minimal sentence. She will be required to serve 16 months, with almost 2 months time already served, so she could be out in slightly over a year.

Ultimately there are no winners in this situation. Wright is still dead, and Potter's life is basically ruined. I feel bad for both families. I think the punishment was appropriate.
Potter could not just be let go, saying, oops, sorry. Accident or not, police have to be held to a higher standard than that. OTOH, I dont know what a longer sentence would have accomplished, other that giving the family some satisfaction.

A longer sentence would have accomplished what all sentencing tries to accomplish, a deterrence to unwanted behavior. This judge essentially said that police are to be treated differently.

 

[shortylickens]

yeah I agree theres no winners here.
We all know that cops all across America deliberately do the wrong thing every day. And its a problem we seem unable to fix. Thats not what this situation is. This situation is an apparently honest, decent cop made a huge mistake, which is tragic but does happen sometimes. Do we wanna crucify her just because it occurred at the same time there's a big crack down on police misconduct in America? I don't think we do.

 

[HomerJS]

A black cop who accidently shot a white woman was sentenced to 5 years.

Even in the case of accidents black people are treated more harshly. That 2.5x the sentence of Potter. Originally the black cop was given 12.5 years.
Activists: Cop's shooting of white woman treated differently | AP News

 

[ondma]

A longer sentence would have accomplished what all sentencing tries to accomplish, a deterrence to unwanted behavior. This judge essentially said that police are to be treated differently.

The operative word is "tries to accomplish". I dont have specific data at hand, but from studies I recall seeing, I dont think the death penalty or harsh sentences have been proven to deter crime. They certainly will not deter tragic situations like this, because it was, by all we can determine, a tragic accident.

 

[ondma]

A black cop who accidently shot a white woman was sentenced to 5 years.

Even in the case of accidents black people are treated more harshly. That 2.5x the sentence of Potter. Originally the black cop was given 12.5 years.
Activists: Cop's shooting of white woman treated differently | AP News

Dont think it is fair to play the race card here. Noor's conviction for murder was overturned, and his sentence reduced. I think is 5 years is totally appropriate, even too short IMO. It is a far different situation than the Potter case.

If you want to claim racial bias, I would totally agree that the cop who shot Philandro Castile should have been severely punished, but Noor more than deserved what he got.

 

[ivwshane]

The operative word is "tries to accomplish". I dont have specific data at hand, but from studies I recall seeing, I dont think the death penalty or harsh sentences have been proven to deter crime. They certainly will not deter tragic situations like this, because it was, by all we can determine, a tragic accident.

No one is asking for that. What we would like is for sentencing to be similar to what others who have committed the same crime receive.

 

[HomerJS]

Dont think it is fair to play the race card here. Noor's conviction for murder was overturned, and his sentence reduced. I think is 5 years is totally appropriate, even too short IMO. It is a far different situation than the Potter case.

If you want to claim racial bias, I would totally agree that the cop who shot Philandro Castile should have been severely punished, but Noor more than deserved what he got.

Why is the Noor case different from the Potter case? The Castillo case should have rendered way more time but his shooting was intentional. Not a good comparison