Minneapolis PD Suffocate Unarmed Black Man Who Later Dies in Hospital

[GGG]

Originally Posted by schteve_d

So they gave the crowd too much benefit of the doubt? They just can't win.

I don’t believe I said or implied that.

The police need to be able to keep themselves safe. They should not put themselves in situations where they need to shoot or drive through people to escape unless their is a significant extenuating circumstance.

It seems in many instances of deaths or violence that the initiating incident is that the police put themselves in a situation where they had limit options instead of doing literally nothing.

It’s not about giving protestors the benefit of the doubt or not. Police need to maintain safe exits so that if a situation changes they can exit without violence. Reducing violence against civilians saves officers lives. Deescalation saves officers lives.

These incidents focus too much on how should the officer have reacted once the situation went to ####. Instead the focus needs to be on how did the officer put himself in a situation where he felt his choice was run over civilians or be killed and how do you prevent that.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by schteve_d

This is why I said you were too stupid to argue with; your reading comprehension is atrocious. That was not an argument, it was a "what if". I didn't know, and you didn't know. As more information came out, granted some of it you provided, my argument evolved.

Dude, you can't cry about your argument being distorted when you keep trying to say that I'm calling a window smasher or hood jumper (if they exist at all) as peaceful when that is clearly not my argument, nor has it ever been. I'm talking about the dozens who didn't jump on the hood, who had no idea there was an apparent window smasher.

Originally Posted by schteve_d

I stand by what I originally said.

I know you do. I knew you would no matter what. I said as much:

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

It doesn't matter where he was going or what the call was (hint: there was no call, otherwise any of the vehicles behind him would have turned around safely). He was in a situation where he put people willfully in danger and than exploited it and will use him fearing for his safety as cover for driving over a bunch of otherwise peaceful teens. And you'll support him for it, and then wonder why the peaceful protesters get angry.

That's the problem. There was no context that would change your view. If he was trying to get a call, that's fine. If he wasn't, that's also fine. If he said he was in danger? That's not only fine, but now he has a duty to run over as many of these menaces he could!

Police know this. That's the root of the problem right now. Everyone (Black) is a threat. Or can be perceived as a threat. Police have a literal get-out-of-jail-card when they "fear for their safety" so run over a bunch of people chanting at you and hurting your feelings, as long as you say you thought there was a shooting, you're fine. They couldn't even honk before they decided to run over these people. We're extremely lucky we're only talking about a couple hospitalizations and not death, and we aren't talking about people who were participating knowingly in a riot, a second before they got hit their was nothing to indicate that there was any violence (if there was at all).

Originally Posted by schteve_d

The shift that is happening absolutely needs to happen and I support it. We can not have a lawless society in the meantime. It is unfortunate that people are using the needed change for cover for their own agenda or comeuppance, and even profit. It detracts from the real issues.

Lawless? This guy ran over a bunch of people because someone sat on his hood. Which is more lawless?

Originally Posted by schteve_d

I have seen videos where the police are clearly wrong,

I know you have, you watched this video.

My point is this; Police have a duty to protect. Not just innocent citizens they like, but innocent citizens who are mean to them. Running over innocent people should never be tolerated. Ever. There should be no context that makes it okay. You shouldn't need to try and justify someone chanting at a police officer as a non-peaceful protester deserving of getting ran over.

When people say Black Lives Matter, they mean even those who yell at cops.

[schteve_d]

That makes sense and I support it, but crowds can be a funny thing. I've put myself into crummy situations that I didn't read right. Driving in a car and trying to read a crowd, I would think, would be very difficult. I say "I would think" as I've never had to do it. From the accounts of this incident, this car was leading protesters so it's fair to think that things may have changed quickly.

We sure expect a lot of our police PEOPLE to always make the right decision in the toughest of situations and as fast as lightening. I capitalized that because it seems like a few people here forget that they are just that: People.


Edit: Sorry, was responding to GGG.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by schteve_d

That makes sense and I support it, but crowds can be a funny thing. I've put myself into crummy situations that I didn't read right. Driving in a car and trying to read a crowd, I would think, would be very difficult. I say "I would think" as I've never had to do it. From the accounts of this incident, this car was leading protesters so it's fair to think that things may have changed quickly.

We sure expect a lot of our police PEOPLE to always make the right decision in the toughest of situations and as fast as lightening. I capitalized that because it seems like a few people here forget that they are just that: People.


Edit: Sorry, was responding to GGG.

That’s the job.

To make the right decision in high pressure situations all of the time.

This is why we need to ensure they are the correct people to send for each situation they attend to. Ensure their scope of practice is limited to their area of expertise. Ensure that their work procedures identify and require limiting the use of force, a warning before shooting and deescalation first.

The ideas that BLM are campaigning for are required precisely because the Police are people. The ideas at 8cantwait.org are worth looking at for researched ways to reduce police violence against civilians and reduce officer harm.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by schteve_d

That makes sense and I support it, but crowds can be a funny thing. I've put myself into crummy situations that I didn't read right. Driving in a car and trying to read a crowd, I would think, would be very difficult. I say "I would think" as I've never had to do it. From the accounts of this incident, this car was leading protesters so it's fair to think that things may have changed quickly.

We sure expect a lot of our police PEOPLE to always make the right decision in the toughest of situations and as fast as lightening. I capitalized that because it seems like a few people here forget that they are just that: People.


Edit: Sorry, was responding to GGG.

Of course we expect a lot out of our police people. We give them weapons and the power to make decisions that radically impact people’s lives, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.

In what world shouldn’t we expect a lot out of them? The problem is definitely a mix of individual issues and widespread issues with culture and training. That doesn’t mean it’s acceptable for the police to make daily mistakes that endanger innocent lives.

Being a police officer requires a little more responsibility and more serious consequences for not living up to those responsibilities than bagging groceries. That, too, seems to be forgotten by a few people.

[afc wimbledon]

I was actually moderately fine with the cop in the car, he used to much gas, it wasnt actually neccersary to throw them off the car, just keep going but other than that I dont expect cops to get the #### kicked out of them any more than I expect them to be beating people

[schteve_d]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Of course we expect a lot out of our police people. We give them weapons and the power to make decisions that radically impact people’s lives, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.

In what world shouldn’t we expect a lot out of them? The problem is definitely a mix of individual issues and widespread issues with culture and training. That doesn’t mean it’s acceptable for the police to make daily mistakes that endanger innocent lives.

Being a police officer requires a little more responsibility and more serious consequences for not living up to those responsibilities than bagging groceries. That, too, seems to be forgotten by a few people.

I know. At the same time, I made an error a couple of weeks ago that cost my company some money. Not big money, but enough to call it substantial. I told my boss about it. I've done enough in my position to benefit my company that it was forgiven quickly with a bit of a hint along the lines of "don't make it a habit". I was not video taped making my mistake, nor did I make it on a whim. I had time to think about it and still chose wrong. I had no ill intention and if I could go back with a little more information I might have chose differently.

I make more than a cop.

[OMG!WTF!]

I would think not running people over and not accelerating to about 60 km/hr with someone on my hood would be a pretty easy decision to make.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

For me, the officer loses credibility and should be disciplined for the following:



This is after the car is cleared from the crowd.

Let's say the protester jumped on the hood of the car (from videos it looks like he leans backward onto the hood before the car drives forward) but let's say he jumped on it.

The officer clears the crowd and stops momentarily. Those that were on the car fall off to the sides, except one. The guy in the black lands on his feet in the front right of the car. The car is stopped for less than a second before turning toward the protester, hitting the him again and speeding away.

To me that's an issue.

Would the protester have moved out of the way? I don't know, but he should have been given the option and not hit with a car and driven away.

The officer shouldn't have veered in his direction, away sure, but not toward.

The officer shouldn't get a pass for that.

Should they get a pass for how they exited the crowd? I lean toward no, but not having the training I don't know how to get out of the situation, I'd need more information. But, the video above is a major issue.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I would think not running people over and not accelerating to about 60 km/hr with someone on my hood would be a pretty easy decision to make.

Well there's your problem. You're treating these people as people. If you could pretend that they were all violent criminal thugs ready to shoot the police officer, it's a lot easier. Who cares if there was no gun, and the vast majority were merely a bunch of kids singing a song, that's too humanizing. You lose a bunch of your ammunition if you consider them people with their own lives.

Instead treat them as criminals, nay vermin, make sure you recognize that when the police officer paints the situation as fearing for his own safety that his life that could be in danger is much more valuable than a bunch of young Black teens who lives are in danger. Then you'll understand why running over a dozen of them is okay. And you'll be missing the entire point of why Black Live Matters needs to exist in the first place though.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Good question.

I believe the appropriate next action is to start ramming the police car into oncoming traffic, t-boning as many cars as possible.

Seriously, if the first car doesn't yield the next should. Its a reasonable expectation that the first car into the intersection may not hear/see the police car.

Keep in mind in your example the comparator is more the police car is at a red light, no emergency, and wanting to move with traffic going through the intersection blocking him due to their green light.

....

Now to the topic at hand, (commenting in general and not specifically to Azure) where the officer goes from having the self defense argument to losing it is when he clears the crowd, stops, then instantly rams the protester again speeding away with him on the hood.

There is no justification for that. None.

Even if you believe the car clearing the crowd was justified (which without debating its merits, is a reasonable belief) once clear and stopped, the threat is over for the moment, even if only for a few seconds. The officer then should have cleared the scene entirely without hitting the protestor that was in front of him. They should have given that protester the ability to move. The officer did not.

That is unjustified. Regardless of any defense of self safety, that was inexcusable.

You know why it is a good question? Because it rarely, if ever happens. Most times people get out of the way, or worst case scenario they jump the curb and keep going.

I'm sure all of us have experienced an emergency vehicle coming behind you, or in front and not really being able to move out of the way due to the traffic or whatever. And yet, somehow it works out and you never really hear about this guy getting t-boned, or that guy keep run over.

I wonder why that is....

As for what you think SHOULD have happened, I agree. Given the circumstances, the cop should have tried to do everything in his power to force the protesters to clear out and move away. But, given what has been going on, and how violent the protests came become, I understand that the situation can deteriorate very quickly, so I don't think its fair to sit here and say and judge. It is an impossible situation.

At the end of the day, there is a bias going on, and it is very evident that one specific poster in this thread has been caught up in the idea that 'cops just want to stir sh&t up.' Unfortunately that is far from the truth, but if you come from that viewpoint, there is nothing the cops can do in a situation like the one we are talking about where it would have been the 'right' move.

Think about that for a second. Imagine being in a situation where no matter what you do, it'll be the wrong response. Why would anyone want to be a cop anymore? That is how far we've come.

Sad really, because the end result here will be you won't have to defund the police. They are just going to quit.

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by schteve_d

I thanked your post, and then I thought: "oh geez, you're not talking about me, are you?" Lol.

You're both making yourselves look terrible. You both have valid points and you're both intentionally ignoring that the other has made a good point just to continue bickering.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Yeah, guess what? I'm NOT talking about anyone who smashed a police vehicle. You want to point out specific people who deserved to be ran over (lol), I'll disagree they deserved to be ran over, but will likely agree they weren't peaceful protesters.

I'm talking about the numerous innocent and peaceful protesters who first touched the vehicle when they were ran over by it and the dip#### officer.

Man you are being obtuse.

So far you've given two options for what the police should have done. Not drive into the crowd, which I'd imagine is their tasking order and not something they have a choice about, or get out and start shooting people.

And now you're saying 'lets not talk about those people presenting a threat. Instead what about all the other peoples!!!' without realizing that the people (could have just been 2) that are breaking windows and jumping on the car are the ones creating the threat, and the ones prompting the police to act.

Nobody is saying they should have just driven over people, but I'd really like you to tell us all, especially cause you just like to call the police 'sh&t disturbers', that outside of getting out of the vehicle and shooting people, what you think the cops should have done to de-escalate the situation.

Seriously, I want to know.

You have presented zero solutions to the problem. You can't even admit that the protesters were creating an issue. So really, I'd like to know how you'd handle it from that armchair position you are coming from.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

What? I said numerous times the police officer should not have put himself in that position....Then I would say, once they put themselves in that position, the best thing to do would be nothing. Wait for the many many police directly behind to do something so you don't have to drive over innocent people. Then I would say arrest if you can, and if you actually feared for your safety than I would say eliminate those threats as you normally would. Just at no point ever do you run over innocent peaceful protesters.

Of course they put themselves in a position to get surrounded, then claim they fear for safety (which I said in my second post on the subject would be the case), and now people will give them carte blanche to excuse their action.

It doesn't matter if you say the cops shouldn't have put themselves into that position.

They were there, it happened, what should they have done?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Honestly what a dumb question. What should they have done? It's a dumb question because it implies that the only option was to splatter people on the ground in a botched get away attempt. Oling is right. Literally anything other than drive into people. There are two or three squad cars there. There are hundreds more available in the city of Detroit. Wait for more help. Wait until you get the appropriate response in place...tear gas if that's your MO. It's just a loss of temper by the driver. You can see it build and then explode.

No, Oling is saying they should have gotten out and started shooting people.

The situation was obviously deteriorating very quickly. You sure can see it build and explode. So, we'd all like to know how the cops should have responded where you and pal would have deemed it acceptable.

So far we've heard that shooting people is acceptable, but running over them isn't. Any other options that would be acceptable?

Just trying to sort things out and expose the obvious bias that is going on here. Some people simply won't ever admit that cops are put into impossible situations where their only option is a bad one.

What about the protesters? Did they have better options? Maybe could have handled things differently? Oh right, they were 'peaceful' and not a 'threat.'

I get how this works.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Azure

As for what you think SHOULD have happened, I agree. Given the circumstances, the cop should have tried to do everything in his power to force the protesters to clear out and move away. But, given what has been going on, and how violent the protests came become, I understand that the all that has been proven. There's half a dozen of cop cars behind the car in situation can deteriorate very quickly, so I don't think its fair to sit here and say and judge. It is an impossible situation.

How "violent" did it become? There's a person sitting on the hood and that's all so far. Police should have dashcam footage of the alleged skateboarder but the police haven't released that footage yet...

Originally Posted by Azure

Think about that for a second. Imagine being in a situation where no matter what you do, it'll be the wrong response. Why would anyone want to be a cop anymore? That is how far we've come.

Sad really, because the end result here will be you won't have to defund the police. They are just going to quit.

We don't need them to make the right decision if there is no right decision. But they need to avoid the absolute most wrong decision.

Running over a bunch of teens chanting is the absolute most wrong decision. It should never be acceptable under any circumstance. I honestly can't believe that's there's otherwise people I would consider intelligent trying to explain why running into a bunch of teens was the right decision.

It's not a tricky flow chart:

Are you going to put dozens of innocent people's lives at risk with your decision?

Yes - Don't do it. Just don't. It's not hard.
No - Okay, let's work with this.

But of course certain posters think that children chanting during a planned and otherwise peaceful march deserve to be ran over by police because their lives truly don't matter (at least not as much as some coward pig) and then will claim that they are listening to Black Lives Matter.

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by Azure

It doesn't matter if you say the cops shouldn't have put themselves into that position.

They were there, it happened, what should they have done?

Use external speakers to tell protesters that they are going to begin to move and to get out of the way and then proceed SLOWLY.

It's really not that difficult to come up with a solution that doesn't require sending multiple people to the hospital by running them over without warning.

I don't know how you can call him obtuse when you are being just as bad.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Azure

It doesn't matter if you say the cops shouldn't have put themselves into that position.

They were there, it happened, what should they have done?

Wait and do nothing in this situation. Even if it escalated further he still has the option of hitting the gas and running people over.

Call for back up. There are lots of other cruisers with officers that aren’t trapped in their vehicles.

Use the speaker to make demands of the protestors to back off and clearly inform them that you will be slowly moving forward to remove the vehicle from the situation.

Slowly escalate the level of force being used.


I think I’m general that when footage like this is released they should add commentary based on police policy for the situation of how the officer should be handling it. Right from the start of engagement onward. This way we no whether to blame policy, blame the officer or accept that its part of policing. It’s the same as the NHL not releasing sensible decision justifications for penalties and video reviews.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Azure

No, Oling is saying they should have gotten out and started shooting people.

The situation was obviously deteriorating very quickly. You sure can see it build and explode. So, we'd all like to know how the cops should have responded where you and pal would have deemed it acceptable.

So far we've heard that shooting people is acceptable, but running over them isn't. Any other options that would be acceptable?

I mean if you ignore all other options presented, then targeting the perceived threats is at least better than indiscriminately driving over a bunch of teens. We could be looking at multiple deaths. But you ignore everything else. They could...

Do nothing and wait for it to de-escalate. Easy.

Do nothing and if it escalates let your dozens of other officers not surrounded by the crowd figure it out.

Try to disperse the crowd with warnings, honkings, sirens, speakers, then slowly move back towards the other officers, or forward slowly.

Start arresting those who are vandalized. Maybe move onto those not dispersing.

Then finally, shoot the people who make you fear for your life if that's the actual case. That is, afterall, the reason they drove over innocent people. If you believe their BS. Which also means they ran away from their fellow officers leaving them to deal with an active shooter. Could you imagine if any other police officer actually believed that? Lol. It's clear they didn't.

Originally Posted by Azure

Just trying to sort things out and expose the obvious bias that is going on here. Some people simply won't ever admit that cops are put into impossible situations where their only option is a bad one.

It's funny how half the time "I'm biased for the police" and half "I'm biased against them" depending on the actual situation. It's almost like I look at the situation and facts before making my decision. The facts is this idiot put a bunch of teens in danger cause some jerk had the audacity to sit on his car.

Originally Posted by Azure

What about the protesters? Did they have better options? Maybe could have handled things differently? Oh right, they were 'peaceful' and not a 'threat.'

I get how this works.

You used quotations as though you don't mean to say they were peaceful and not a threat, but they were peaceful and not a threat. There was no gun, the videos clearly show everyone who hit was either standing and chanting, walking, or one guy was sitting on the hood.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

But of course certain posters think that children chanting during a planned and otherwise peaceful march deserve to be ran over by police because their lives truly don't matter (at least not as much as some coward pig) and then will claim that they are listening to Black Lives Matter.

I don’t think anyone is actually saying this.

Independant of this situation Do you believe that at some point when an Officers life is threatened He has the right to respond with lethal force?

And

Do you believe that at some point when an Officers life is threatened he has the right to respond with lethal force even if there is risk of an innocent person dying (stray bullet or something)

If you believe that Officers have at some point the right to defend themselves and that innocent people could be hurt in this defense then not much separates you from the posters you are criticizing. It’s really just a matter of degree that you believe the officers life is at risk and the amount of risk to the public that is acceptable for the officer to protect themselves. Having a discussion around when these thresholds are breached would be much more productive than accusing people of not caring about teenagers and calling cops pigs.