Minneapolis PD Suffocate Unarmed Black Man Who Later Dies in Hospital

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Ooooooooooh 14 years as a juvi release planner. You’re some sort of public safety expert aren’t you? Total controlled environment and you wanna preach public safety from your glory days in dear ‘Ol England and working with kids in a halfway house. You’ve no damn clue and all you do is spread distrust and assumptions instead of having a conversation to improve things. Shame on you

Like most foster parents that deal with young offenders I get regular curfew check visits from VPD, they at times hang out and chat and I remember having the 'your job versus my job' chat with the cop, I told him I wouldn't want his job for all the tea in China as everyone is mad at him due to his job, his response was 'yes but I have a gun, pepper spray, a radio, a car, a partner and 10 other cops by my side in 2 or 3 minutes at the longest, you have nothing but your ability to talk' we both agreed we didn't want each others job.

[ignite09]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Ooooooooooh 14 years as a juvi release planner. You’re some sort of public safety expert aren’t you? Total controlled environment and you wanna preach public safety from your glory days in dear ‘Ol England and working with kids in a halfway house. You’ve no damn clue and all you do is spread distrust and assumptions instead of having a conversation to improve things. Shame on you

Man, you're really not as smart as you think you are. Juvenile insults and over dramatic "hand waving" makes you sound like a petulant teenager pretending at intelligence. Even if you had a valid point, your immature venomous responses have done nothing but lose you credibility. If you actually have something insightful worth adding to the discussion, might I suggest stepping away for a couple minutes, gathering your thoughts, and posting something actually coherent.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

You keep pushing that narrative. I watched the video, he shot a weapon at police, he didn’t have to he CHOSE to. He could have just run away but he CHOSE to point and shoot a weapon at cops.

He did just run away, you need to watch all the video's

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

While this issue probably goes deeper than I care about, might I recommend just putting afc on ignore so the rest of us don’t need to watch this childish tantrum?

I mean the biggest accomplishment here is you’re making yourself look bad and you encouraged another of Bent Wookie’s painfully mindless drivebys. There has to be a way to talk about this like normal adults, or at least to find something better to do on a Saturday night.

You’re absolutely right Pepsi, I will take your advice.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Personally, I'd take all the tea in China. That's a heck of a lot of tea. You could sell it and then probably you wouldn't need a real job, at least for a while.

Anyway, I guess we're just calling other posters twats now? I think AFC is out to lunch - just in general, he has strong opinions despite not coming off as someone who never tries to reason anything through but superficially - but come on, really?

As for whether that guy should have been shot, based on that video... yeah, probably. If your philosophy about use of force is that a policeman should never fire his gun unless someone is about to shoot him, you might come to the opposite conclusion. Other than that, I'm not sure how "resisted arrest, assault, attempted multiple times to get ahold of officer's weapon, did manage to get a taser off him, then tried to run" doesn't result in a guy getting shot. But perhaps that's now changing?

[ignite09]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

You keep pushing that narrative. I watched the video, he shot a weapon at police, he didn’t have to he CHOSE to. He could have just run away but he CHOSE to point and shoot a weapon at cops.

Right. Then the cops CHOSE to gun down a man running in the opposite direction carrying a non lethal weapon. Why should the average citizen be held responsible for their actions but cops are not?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

You keep pushing that narrative. I watched the video, he shot a weapon at police, he didn’t have to he CHOSE to. He could have just run away but he CHOSE to point and shoot a weapon at cops.

Look believe it or not Zulu I like and work very well with the police, I have to and I consider the VPD to be an excellent force, I have helped them and they have helped me over the years, they do a tough job that I wouldn't want, I just don't see why any one shoots someone whos running away when all the call started with was a DUI, if you disagree that's your call, there is a video from the car park camera that shows the shooting, the kid never turns back, he keeps booking it at full pace, he does wave his arm with the taser behind him as he runs but at no point could anyone describe it as pointed or aimed, to me that's manslaughter, you give them a pass, lets leave it at that

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Personally, I'd take all the tea in China. That's a heck of a lot of tea. You could sell it and then probably you wouldn't need a real job, at least for a while.

Anyway, I guess we're just calling other posters twats now? I think AFC is out to lunch - just in general, he has strong opinions despite not coming off as someone who never tries to reason anything through but superficially - but come on, really?

As for whether that guy should have been shot, based on that video... yeah, probably. If your philosophy about use of force is that a policeman should never fire his gun unless someone is about to shoot him, you might come to the opposite conclusion. Other than that, I'm not sure how "resisted arrest, assault, attempted multiple times to get ahold of officer's weapon, did manage to get a taser off him, then tried to run" doesn't result in a guy getting shot. But perhaps that's now changing?

The question is should it result in him getting shot in the back.

If he was shot during the altercation it would have been clearly reasonable. Is once the use of lethal force line crossed does that give the officer the right to use it for the remainder of the altercation?

[afc wimbledon]

Mods, it would appear you have sinned binned Zulu, that is clearly your call, but I would say I had no problem with the conversation and would not want it on my behalf

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

The question is should it result in him getting shot in the back.

I agree, that's the question. As far as I'm aware, the answer used to be "yes, as long as it doesn't put the public at risk", i.e. you wouldn't shoot him if there were a bunch of people around. I assume the rationale for that was that you didn't want criminals getting away, and if they know they won't get shot if they run, then they might as well run. Chasing them creates a number of risks to officer safety. So, if a shot presents itself that doesn't pose a risk to others, the officer can take it.

Again, that is what I have always assumed to be the standard protocol for a situation like that one. Perhaps people want that not to be the way things are done.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by ignite09

Right. Then the cops CHOSE to gun down a man running in the opposite direction carrying a non lethal weapon. Why should the average citizen be held responsible for their actions but cops are not?

Well for the average citizen this would be a simple self defence case. Pointing a weapon (taser is a weapon) and firing it at somone is grounds for firing back. Sell defence shootings are very common in the USA, even when no weapon is involved. IMO a regular citizen gets off in court on this easily.

In this case the man who was being arrested did everything wrong, drove drunk, resisted arrest, took a police officers weapon, fled from police and fired the weapon at them. The grey area from public perspective is that a taser is non lethal. Neither the officer nor the general public were at further risk.

[PepsiFree]

I’m not even sure who in their right mind could defend the actions of the police officer in the killing of Rayshard Brooks.

The videos show a pretty clear series of events from the time of the struggle, in this order: Brooks takes the taser and runs, the cop shoots Brooks with the taser but he continues running, the cop reaches for his gun, Brooks turns back and fires the taser, the cop pulls the gun and shoots him in the back.

It raises a few questions for me, namely why the cop went for his gun with Brooks running away, and why he killed someone who did not have a deadly weapon and committed zero actions that deserved a death sentence.

I think the idea “oh point a taser at a cop and you’re going to die!” is exactly what’s wrong with the world right now. People are happy to see a black man get shot in the back because he did something he wasn’t supposed to. I mean we all know this is the result, but why is anyone defending this result as the right course of action? Killed for trying to taser a cop while you’re running away from them?

The cops themselves hit Brooks with a taser and it didn’t seem to do a whole lot. And they’re what, scared of getting the same back? So they kill him? Disgusting.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

Well for the average citizen this would be a simple self defence case. Pointing a weapon (taser is a weapon) and firing it at somone is grounds for firing back. Sell defence shootings are very common in the USA, even when no weapon is involved. IMO a regular citizen gets off in court on this easily.

But it's clearly not self defense if he's running away, is the point. There's no immediate risk to the safety of the person who shot him. They weren't defending themselves. They were shooting him to make sure he didn't get away after resisting arrest, committing assault and stealing an officer's weapon. Whether you're okay with that shoot should depend on whether you're okay with that, not on some half-baked "self defense" argument.

[ignite09]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I agree, that's the question. As far as I'm aware, the answer used to be "yes, as long as it doesn't put the public at risk", i.e. you wouldn't shoot him if there were a bunch of people around. I assume the rationale for that was that you didn't want criminals getting away, and if they know they won't get shot if they run, then they might as well run. Chasing them creates a number of risks to officer safety. So, if a shot presents itself that doesn't pose a risk to others, the officer can take it.

Again, that is what I have always assumed to be the standard protocol for a situation like that one. Perhaps people want that not to be the way things are done.

Well, I can only answer for myself, but yes. Killing another human being because they might "get away" isn't a justifiable reason. I had always assumed I was in the majority on that issue. I'm not so sure anymore.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by ignite09

Well, I can only answer for myself, but yes. Killing another human being because they might "get away" isn't a justifiable reason. I had always assumed I was in the majority on that issue. I'm not so sure anymore.

I think you might be, now. It certainly seems that way, considering how obvious a lot of people now think that perspective is. I think if it were 10 or 20 years ago, you would probably be in the minority, and shooting a fleeing criminal was generally considered to be what the police were supposed to do. If you're told to freeze, and you don't comply, don't be surprised if you get shot, essentially.

Again, it certainly seems like that's no longer how people want police to behave, and for good reason. But let's not act like that was never something that anyone could possibly comprehend them doing, or that there was no rational thought underlying the policy.

[OMG!WTF!]

I honestly wonder if it's an ego things as much as it is poor training. Not wanting to be the cop who let one get away. The risk to the public was zero, except for when the gun was fired. If the guy had just murdered several people then maybe. Sadly, I think it's probably a good example of what not to do and maybe some cops will learn from it. Let him go and call in a well trained german shepherd to do your job for you.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Well, no, the risk to the public is not zero, because letting a violent individual who has just committed several crimes go in a residential neighborhood does carry some potential risk to the public. Maybe we all agree that the risk is acceptable. There's also the broader policy choice that we're going to let criminals go if they run from the police, and presumably try to track them down later. Unclear if the thinking is that they'll cooperate at that later time, or what.

It's fine if that's the policy we want. Also okay if, as you suggest, the policy is only to shoot him if he's suspected of murder (or multiple murders was I guess what you were suggesting). Sure, that's a decision we can make as a society about how we want law enforcement to behave. Just have to be okay with the notion that in that situation, that guy is going to be running around your neighborhood with a taser, among other consequences.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

From the Chappelle clip:

"She told George Floyd's rap record... Oh, he did this, he did that, he's a drug addict, and he's not a hero. Why does the black community make him a hero? Why did you choose him as a hero?

We didn't choose him. You did. They killed him, and that wasn't right, so he's the guy.

We're not desperate for heroes in the black community. Any ##### that survives this nightmare is my god damned hero."

Wow.

I'm grateful for Chappelle dropping this special, it made it less of a hot take to hate Candace Owens.

[ignite09]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I honestly wonder if it's an ego things as much as it is poor training. Not wanting to be the cop who let one get away. The risk to the public was zero, except for when the gun was fired. If the guy had just murdered several people then maybe. Sadly, I think it's probably a good example of what not to do and maybe some cops will learn from it. Let him go and call in a well trained german shepherd to do your job for you.

Yeah, I didn't really want to approach it from that angle because there is no way of proving it, but that was my first instinct as well. Two on one and he still pulled off the "get away".Probably my own bias showing, but I wouldn't be surprised if the cops inability to subdue him during the initial struggle played a part in how quickly they resorted too lethal measures.

[ignite09]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Well, no, the risk to the public is not zero, because letting a violent individual who has just committed several crimes go in a residential neighborhood does carry some potential risk to the public. Maybe we all agree that the risk is acceptable. There's also the broader policy choice that we're going to let criminals go if they run from the police, and presumably try to track them down later. Unclear if the thinking is that they'll cooperate at that later time, or what.

It's fine if that's the policy we want. Also okay if, as you suggest, the policy is only to shoot him if he's suspected of murder (or multiple murders was I guess what you were suggesting). Sure, that's a decision we can make as a society about how we want law enforcement to behave. Just have to be okay with the notion that in that situation, that guy is going to be running around your neighborhood with a taser, among other consequences.

Sorry for my ignorance, but what was this man accused of agian?