Minneapolis PD Suffocate Unarmed Black Man Who Later Dies in Hospital

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Police discontinue chases all the time when the risk is too great and that includes risk to the person being chased. You don't shoot someone in order to save someone if that person is not threatening anyone.

Well, this presupposes that the policy is that you should only shoot a suspect "in order to save someone". Okay. What does that mean? They have to be actively pointing a gun at someone? They have to have a gun, such that they might use it on someone? Or you have to have reason to believe they're the sort of person who, if you let them get away, is liable to hurt someone? If it's the last one, what level of reason to believe do you need, and how bad a guy do they need to be? That seems to leave a lot of judgment to the officer.

Or maybe it's none of the above. If so, what is the standard?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Have you been following this thread? That's exactly what people are saying.

Sent from my HD1905 using Tapatalk

So how long then after the assault does the officer have the right to shoot him?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Well, this presupposes that the policy is that you should only shoot a suspect "in order to save someone". Okay. What does that mean? They have to be actively pointing a gun at someone? They have to have a gun, such that they might use it on someone? Or you have to have reason to believe they're the sort of person who, if you let them get away, is liable to hurt someone? If it's the last one, what level of reason to believe do you need, and how bad a guy do they need to be? That seems to leave a lot of judgment to the officer.

Or maybe it's none of the above. If so, what is the standard?

It's a good question but like most things, I don't think it's as difficult as you're making it. If cops have to make split second decisions it can't be that complex. But there is a world of difference between someone who you are pursuing for murder, someone who is armed with lethal weapons and someone who woke up in a drive thru and got the best of you.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by GGG

Should police officers shoot everyone who commits a dui and runs on foot?

Should police officers shoot somone who is driving while impaired, resists arrest, assaults an officer, takes an officers weapon, flees from police and discharges the weapon at an officer?

Now my personal opinion is that this shooting is unjustified, the victim was running away from police and should've been considered low risk to the general public. I however do not know enough about the policies and training to determine if this officer did what he was trained to do or if said training is appropriate action.

[ignite09]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Please don't lecture me about being "reasonable" in a thread.

Seriously, have you been following this one. Reasonableness has never been a standard - AFC, Pepsi, March Hare, Oling. Not exactly hallmarks of reasonable, well thought out discussion.

Sent from my HD1905 using Tapatalk

What aboutism is a poor look for anyone trying to get their point across Bent. Worry less about what others post, and more about the substance of what your providing this site.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

Should police officers shoot somone who is driving while impaired, resists arrest, assaults an officer, takes an officers weapon, flees from police and discharges the weapon at an officer?

Now my personal opinion is that this shooting is unjustified, however I do not know enough about the policies and training to determine if this officer did what he was trained to do or if said training is appropriate action.

Definately agree that in many of these types of cases officers may be following procedures and what they do may be legal. In general though when people are angry at officers killing people it’s that a person is dead and the question is could it have been avoided not was it legal.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

It's a good question but like most things, I don't think it's as difficult as you're making it. If cops have to make split second decisions it can't be that complex. But there is a world of difference between someone who you are pursuing for murder, someone who is armed with lethal weapons and someone who woke up in a drive thru and got the best of you.

Well, that's my point. If we're going to do things your way, we do need to draw the line somewhere, whether it be an accused murderer, or someone believed to be armed and dangerous - and does that mean an AR15, or is a knife enough? Personally if someone is fleeing a crime scene where they've just stabbed someone, I don't want them to get away even if the person who gets stabbed ends up not dying, for example. I'd also not want an accused child molester getting away if they run. But that's all a matter of degrees.

It's a good point you make, though, about split second decisions, particularly in a situation where you're considering whether to shoot someone. If it's just, this guy is a criminal and he's going to escape so I'm taking the shot, that does have the virtue of simplicity. Introducing a more complicated decision matrix might also lead to some of the people even you would want shot getting away. Another consequence you'd have to be okay with if this is the force application policy you want to see used.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by GGG

Definately agree that in many of these types of cases officers may be following procedures and what they do may be legal. In general though when people are angry at officers killing people it’s that a person is dead and the question is could it have been avoided not was it legal.

And an even bigger question is would a white guy have been shot if this same situation played out?

[ignite09]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Well, this presupposes that the policy is that you should only shoot a suspect "in order to save someone". Okay. What does that mean? They have to be actively pointing a gun at someone? They have to have a gun, such that they might use it on someone? Or you have to have reason to believe they're the sort of person who, if you let them get away, is liable to hurt someone? If it's the last one, what level of reason to believe do you need, and how bad a guy do they need to be? That seems to leave a lot of judgment to the officer.

Or maybe it's none of the above. If so, what is the standard?

A discussion that I hope is taking place between more powerful and Intelligent people than myself. I will say however, that passed out drunk in a Wendy's drive thru shouldn't meet the standards required for lethal force. And I hope cops are trained better, and more prepared to handle an Individual in that state so the perceived need too gun him down while running away isn't considered the appropriate option.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by ignite09

A discussion that I hope is taking place between more powerful and Intelligent people than myself. I will say however, that passed out drunk in a Wendy's drive thru shouldn't meet the standards required for lethal force. And I hope cops are trained better, and more prepared to handle an Individual in that state so the perceived need too gun him down while running away isn't considered the appropriate option.

Yah, you are conveniently leaving out all that transpired.

[ignite09]

Essentially IMO the majority of these cases seem too involve police not overly prepared for the circumstances they're met with. At that point they revert back to their original training that essentially tells them " better them than me". As most people seem to get here, we need a paradigm shift in how police approach public safety and their day to day interactions with all of us.

[ignite09]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

Yah, you are conveniently leaving out all that transpired.

Enlighten me. I thought I had the jist of the situation, I read what happened and watched the video twice.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by ignite09

Essentially IMO the majority of these cases seem too involve police not overly prepared for the circumstances they're met with. At that point they revert back to their original training that essentially tells them " better them than me". As most people seem to get here, we need a paradigm shift in how police approach public safety and their day to day interactions with all of us.

Originally Posted by ignite09

Enlighten me. I thought I had the jist of the situation, I read what happened and watched the video twice.

Failed field sobriety test, resisting arrest, assaults an officer, takes an officers weapon, flees from police and discharges the weapon at an officer.

[ignite09]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

Failed field sobriety test, resisting arrest, assaults an officer, takes an officers weapon, flees from police and discharges the weapon at an officer.

So, in your opinion, the two arresting officers have no responsibility in letting it escalate too the point where they lost control? Two on one, passed out in vehicle, but two trained officers shouldn't be able too handle that?

Besides that's not the point anyway. Let's not lose the narrative here. A man was gunned down, running away from the cops. No history that I know of that would put the community at risk. Maybe my standards for police are too high, but this shouldn't have ended in a homicide.

[OMG!WTF!]

Well...there's goes the Wendy's...

[afc wimbledon]

nm

[Galakanokis]

Do they shot everyone or just turn and run away?


https://twitter.com/QasimRashid/stat...985440768?s=19

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by ignite09

So, in your opinion, the two arresting officers have no responsibility in letting it escalate too the point where they lost control? Two on one, passed out in vehicle, but two trained officers shouldn't be able too handle that?

Besides that's not the point anyway. Let's not lose the narrative here. A man was gunned down, running away from the cops. No history that I know of that would put the community at risk. Maybe my standards for police are too high, but this shouldn't have ended in a homicide.

No that's not my opinion, that's what's shown in the videos. I stated my opinion a few different times, most recently further up this page, and I agree I do not think this man should've been shot and killed.

We don't know what lead to this arrest escalating to the scuffle. You'd have to thnk they were trying to cuff him to take him for a breathalyzer and he resisted. It is pretty naive to think that two guys can easily to
put the handcuffs on someone who is refusing to cooperate.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

We don't know what lead to this arrest escalating to the scuffle. You'd have to thnk they were trying to cuff him to take him for a breathalyzer and he resisted. It is pretty naive to think that two guys can easily to
put the handcuffs on someone who is refusing to cooperate.

There's a video now, the bodycam, that shows everything. The general commentary is that it was a very routine, every day arrest. It was 43 minutes until the handcuffs came out. On the news they seem to think there isn't much of an excuse to not get the cuffs on him. But whatever. I'm not one to talk about that. The outcome however is definitely open to critique.

[ignite09]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

No that's not my opinion, that's what's shown in the videos. I stated my opinion a few different times, most recently further up this page, and I agree I do not think this man should've been shot and killed.

We don't know what lead to this arrest escalating to the scuffle. It is pretty naive however to think that it only takes two guys to put the handcuffs on someone who is refusing to cooperate.

We have different standards for professional policing then. None of this happens if the cops take full control early, and that opportunity was there. He received a sobriety test correct? Why weren't the proper checks in place at that time to prevent an escalation? There was obviously opportunity for the police to lock the situation down early and they failed. That's my view, you disagree.

You want too blindly defend the cops here, fine. I'll admit I'm going too judge them harshly with only information given. In the end, I don't believe current standards for policing are adequate when it comes to authority's responsibility in preventing situations from escalating needlessly, this case to me represents another situation where the cops never had de-escalation as a goal. The cops should always have de-escalation as one of their main objectives. A man died needlessly not because he was belligerent, but because the cops never made him living past their confrontation a priority, that's not acceptable too me.