Minneapolis PD Suffocate Unarmed Black Man Who Later Dies in Hospital

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

For what?

This is institutionalized, which is far far far worse, but he broke no law. They got a no-knock warrant, they executed it, they were shot at, they shot back. Everything is, by law, allowed.

Change the laws to stop this #### from happening again, but you can't charge a person if they hadn't broken a law.

I'm no lawyer, but since they were so utterly incompetent that they executed the no-knock warrant at the wrong address and the person they were actually trying to arrest was already in police custody, could the officer in charge of the operation be charged with criminal negligence causing death?

Edit: apparently this information was reported inaccurately. See comments below.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

That's brutal. I can't imagine any scenario where shooting that guy makes sense. Why were they even contacting him in the first place?

Exactly. The story makes no sense. Not that it should matter, but hopefully the surveillance video has the interaction.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I'm no lawyer, but since they were so utterly incompetent that they executed the no-knock warrant at the wrong address and the person they were actually trying to arrest was already in police custody, could the officer in charge of the operation be charged with criminal negligence causing death?

It wasn't the wrong address. They got the warrant because Breonna was dating the drug dealer they were investigating and they suspected drugs were being sold out of that apartment too. It's probably terrible police work but it convinced a judge to issue the warrant.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Sorry MarchHare but you're wrong on every account. That's the narrative told by her family attorney but was very misleading.

There was two warrants, one for Breonna Taylor's residence (as well as her car) and had her name as a person to search. There was never a mistake, not only was her house to be searched but so was she. (And I disagree with the warrant being issued at all, hence my argument about changing #### so this doesn't happen again, but it was issued).

The other warrant was executed at the exact same time. Both started at 12:40, Breonna Taylor was shot at 12:43, so no, the other suspects (not THE suspects) were not in custody before.

The biggest issue appears to be that the warrants had an incorrect information on a postal inspector but that has not been confirmed yet. And if it was, that's on the officer who wrote the warrant, not the ones who shot her.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Also it was search warrants, not arrest. Two houses, three persons and two cars.

[MarchHare]

My mistake. I was basing my information on what I'd seen reported by reputable media sources like the BBC and ABC News.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

It wasn't the wrong address. They got the warrant because Breonna was dating the drug dealer they were investigating and they suspected drugs were being sold out of that apartment too. It's probably terrible police work but it convinced a judge to issue the warrant.

Just to clarify, because Mr. Walker was Ms. Taylor's boyfriend who shot at the police, but he was not in any of the warrants. From all accounts a law-abiding citizen as far as I know, and legal gun owner who shot at what he thought were invaders.

It was her ex, who still listed her address as his, who used it for mail (allegedly) and was seen travelling often between her residence and the drug house.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

The main piece of police misconduct there appears to have been falsifying an affidavit to secure the warrant in the first place. The affidavit says that the postal inspector had confirmed that the suspect was receiving packages at Taylor's residence, while the inspector later said that his office hadn't been involved in the investigation at all.

The other thing you might question is the existence of no-knock warrants, because given gun ownership norms, if you just bust down the door of a private residence and storm in, the officers are immediately in a position where someone might reflexively shoot at them. Obviously you do the standard yelling about being police and so forth, but it's a dangerous situation. However, there is a good reason to have that type of warrant given the likelihood that evidence will be destroyed if you wait for the suspect to answer the doorbell.

There is also the question of how they managed to fire 25 shots, only to not kill the guy who was actually shooting at them and hit someone else instead. But I don't know if that's really a valid criticism, having no frame of reference whatsoever for what it's like in a shootout.

[missdpuck]

A postal inspection service mail watch goes through the letter carrier in the initial stages. I remember doing this several times. You have to write down everything sent to that address, recipient and sender.
Then, if they see fit, the inspection service will send some bogus letter or package to see if they get the expected reaction.

In one local case an inspector posed as the suspect’s letter carrier. Several of us saw this guy in a mail truck and had no idea who he was. He was an inspector, and they helped break a kiddie porn ring. They are very good at their jobs. And it does take a lot of work.

Most of the drug cases we’ve seen involved general delivery, PO Box or vacant house.

So it’s not some random last minute tho g an inspector can do on a whim to get a warrant. Jeesh.

[missdpuck]

dang phone loves to double-post today.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Or, you know, you could just end the war on drugs and then there's no reason for the police to knock on anybody's door at all.

Do we still want to deal with root causes of inequality in America? The drug war is a great place to start.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Or, you know, you could just end the war on drugs and then there's no reason for the police to knock on anybody's door at all.

Yep, or at the absolute very least get rid of no-knock raids especially if the only concern is evidence destroying. But I feel like you're kinda preaching to the choir here because very few of us will disagree, but that doesn't help much in the Breonna Taylor's case and holding those officers accountable.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by #-3

In the case of Aunt Jemima, I think many ways the brand has outstriped its origins in cultural awareness, and that could have been seen as a good thing. It is important that people are aware and reminded of the institutions that this caricature grew out of. But I think proper treatment of the character in the future, guided by the people she represents could have been a great way to turn these institutions around on themselves. Removing a black face from everyones pantry shelf so we don't have to think about these things in the future just seems counter productive.

Believing that minorities should have to encounter disparaging and insulting racial caricatures of themselves while they're going about daily tasks such as buying groceries, just so you can preserve some abstract notion of dialogue is peak white centrism.

[agulati]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

They "don't believe the security guard was wearing a uniform"? I mean... it's pretty easy to check now, isn't it?

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I think the uniform is actually a really important issue. If it's just a guy standing there looking weird (security guards look suspicious kind of lurking around closed buildings sometimes) a poorly trained cop might see that as an opportunity to investigate someone for no reason. But a uniformed guard should obviously be left alone to do his/her job.



Concealed carry in California is all over the place. I would assume LA has restriction on concealed carry. But simply having a gun is definitely a much different thing there than here.

My point is even if someone is “suspicious (Seems like a code word for minority more and more), ” and runs away, they should not be shot first to figure out what was happening.

Yes a uniform is good in determining if the person is a security guard, but when it comes to shooting someone, it shouldn’t matter.

I’m not so sure about concealed carry laws in US, so I’ll refrain from responding to that part.

[transplant99]

So....have we gotten to the point where any depiction of a black person on a label is considered racist?

Genuinely asking after reading this piece on CBC.ca



Just looks like an old guy laughing to me. Just not sure how that depicts anyone in a poor or lesser light.

Now it is just a review at this point, but is that even warranted?


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfo...-nlc-1.5618690

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I wouldn't have even assumed he was black, from looking at the logo. But even Uncle Ben's does not seem like a harmful caricature in any way.

I think these companies are just worried about becoming the target of censure and are being proactive about steering as far clear of any controversy as they can.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Believing that minorities should have to encounter disparaging and insulting racial caricatures of themselves while they're going about daily tasks such as buying groceries, just so you can preserve some abstract notion of dialogue is peak white centrism.

Like I mostly agree with you, but I don't think it's so black and white (poor wording...). The descendants of the current portrayal of Aunt Jemima have spoken out against her removal. To them, Aunt Jemima wasn't the 1800's minstrel racial character, it is their literal grandma who is being removed.

Speedy Gonzales was removed from Cartoon Network when they purchased the rights to old Looney Tunes due to his racial insensitive background.

That caused a vocal uproar from the Hispanic community because a large amount of them loved Speedy Gonzales despite his less than politically correct history. Ultimately he was added back to the delight of those Hispanic fans.

Letting a bunch of (probably) old white executives decide what's offensive and what isn't, is probably an even worse way to go about things. I don't know the solution, I don't know who gets to decide if Apu was problematically racist or not , or the Blackhawks logo is wrong, but I do know it's not always as simple as we would like (obviously I leave it up to the corporations if they want to remove them).

[Oling_Roachinen]

One thing to keep in mind is that Aunt and Uncle to refer to black elders can be considered problematic. In some cases, it was a way of getting away from calling them Sir or Ma'am and Mr. or Mrs. like their white counterparts. It's not unfair to say that it's called Aunt Jemima instead of Mrs. Jemima because the racists (read: pretty much all white people in the 1800s southern states) would have rioted over giving her that type of respect. While Mrs. Butterworth still has the same 'mammy' racial issues, her creation in the 1960s meant she wasn't called Aunt Butterworth. Think of it like the word "boy", on the surface it doesn't seem at all bad but if you hear a southern police officer call a black man a "boy" you know he's a racist ####head.

In other cases it's because slaves were seen as part of the family, as terrible as that sounds and was. And in other cases it was just a way of showing southern endearing traits.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by agulati

My point is even if someone is “suspicious (Seems like a code word for minority more and more), ” and runs away, they should not be shot first to figure out what was happening.

Especially when you consider that minorities have a good reason to fear the police, whether they are guilty or not.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by #-3

In the case of Aunt Jemima, I think many ways the brand has outstriped its origins in cultural awareness, and that could have been seen as a good thing. It is important that people are aware and reminded of the institutions that this caricature grew out of. But I think proper treatment of the character in the future, guided by the people she represents could have been a great way to turn these institutions around on themselves. Removing a black face from everyones pantry shelf so we don't have to think about these things in the future just seems counter productive.

As someone with both dark and light skinned relatives in their family -- mom is very dark as is most of her family, dad's side burns walking past a microwave that's been recently used, and I am olive-skinned -- I never really thought of Aunt Jemima or Uncle Ben as having any sort of negative racial connotations. I thought it was normal that someone with dark skin might be on the branding of a food product in the same way a light skinned person would be. That is not to say I ever even gave it a moment's consideration; rather, it never crossed my mind to even consider that a there was an ulterior motive or origin to a person being on a package other than "here's a friendly face marketing a product".