Minneapolis PD Suffocate Unarmed Black Man Who Later Dies in Hospital

[MillerTime GFG]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

he has no criminal record, none, I realize he's black and you may find the idea a black guy might just be an ordinary guy difficult to believe

Lol...there it is. 🙄 You got me!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by MillerTime GFG

I think one’s perception of the incident impacts perception of the video itself. I see the first shot with him being out of the vehicle, reaching inside. Almost as if the force of the shot pushed him into the vehicle.

The guy that took the video said he overheard the cops yelling “drop the knife, drop the knife” in the scuffle.

Any type of warrants or criminal history related from dispatch would lead to a heightened sense of awareness, or even fear. Then to have that guy not comply and resist arrest and reach into a car where they can’t see? Come on...don’t resist arrest, don’t get shot. I know you’re arguing that resistance shouldn’t mean being shot and there should be a grey area, but that would be the simplest way to avoid that. The other mistakes he made ultimately lead to the officer pulling the trigger.

The force of the shot pushed him into the vehicle? Alright...

Is it possible you see him reaching in the vehicle because you believe he said he was going to get a gun, which hasn’t been claimed by anyone official? Honest question, because I don’t see how it looks like anything but getting into a vehicle.

The simplest way to avoid being shot would be for police officers to avoid shooting the victim. Police outside of the US manage to do it all the time, so why should we forgive police in the US and put the onus on the victim? Part of the problem is that resisting arrest gets you shot, why do we accept that? No mistake Blake made is worse than the mistake the officer made, so it really doesn’t matter if the outcome was expected. We all know it’s expected. The point is that it shouldn’t be.

“Don’t resist arrest, don’t get shot” might be reality in the US, but it’s not one anyone should reserve to. And I think we can both agree that based on the repeated evidence of police shooting Black people, “resisting arrest” is certainly not the threshold with which they’re happy to do it.

[MillerTime GFG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Part of the problem is that resisting arrest gets you shot, why do we accept that?

Resisting arrest + putting cop in headlock + having a knife + having outstanding warrants + getting in your car/reaching in your car where the cop can’t see. You’re oversimplifying to fit your narrative. Simply “resisting arrest” would be like saying “no I will not go with you Mr. Officer.”

It’s simple. Cops have that authority because we’ve given it to them, and it’s needed. Is it abused at times? Yes, it is...I just don’t believe this is one of those times.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by MillerTime GFG

And what about natural body reaction to being shot, or dealing with pain? Not necessarily the force itself.

You fall forward to the ground where you stand, if he was slumped half way into the car with his feet on the road, torso on the seat you could make a case but he was sitting in his car, arse on the seat, one foot inside completely, the other on the road

Think about it yourself, when you reach in to grab your cell phone, is your back in line with the car or at a 45 to 90 degree angle, if he had been reaching in they wiould have shot his side not his back,

[MillerTime GFG]

Yea we’re gonna have to agree to disagree to where he was when he was shot, and reactions to being shot.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by MillerTime GFG

Resisting arrest + putting cop in headlock + having a knife + having outstanding warrants + getting in your car/reaching in your car where the cop can’t see. You’re oversimplifying to fit your narrative. Simply “resisting arrest” would be like saying “no I will not go with you Mr. Officer.”

It’s simple. Cops have that authority because we’ve given it to them, and it’s needed. Is it abused at times? Yes, it is...I just don’t believe this is one of those times.

Simplifying it to fit my narrative? Come on dude, be fair, you’re the one who said “don’t resist arrest, don’t get shot” and we both know that’s exactly what I was responding to.

Again, who is changing things up to fit their narrative? You’re the one peddling the unfounded “he went for a gun!” nonsense and repeatedly saying he had “warrants” and touting the police union line of him putting an officer in a headlock (something neither the investigator nor the Blake’s attorney supports). Don’t act like you’re not happy to add a little seasoning to fit your narrative.

End of the day, having a warrant, a knife (which you don’t use), struggling with the cops, and then attempting to bounce is not a death sentence. That’s not how the justice system works, sorry.

[TherapyforGlencross]

1 person killed last night in clashes between trump supporters and protestors. Damn.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by TherapyforGlencross

1 person killed last night in clashes between trump supporters and protestors. Damn.

Hopefully it wasn’t another innocent saint with a knife struggling with cops and attempting to bounce.

[White Out 403]

This is a super complicated topic. Pepsi kind of brought us to where the actual debate should be... At what point is lethal force deployed when a suspect resists arrest, or in this case, maybe fugitive is a more accurate word.

I don't want to live in a society where criminals decide when they get arrested. Especially an accused sex criminal with a history of violence... About to get in a vehicle with 3 kids who can then become hostages.

It's not an easy scenario. Blake shouldn't have been shot 7 times and paralyzed. I wish the cops had better training and were able to subdue him. But they couldn't, and they tried. And then he was either going to flee in a vehicle or get a weapon. I guess they could have waited to see what he did next but the situation was rapidly escalating.

What drives me nuts tho is the narrative that he was black and that's why he was shot. There just isn't evidence of that, and because of that inflammatory rhetoric there's violence in the streets with people dying.

[Fuzz]

Did they not have tasers? Why is the first option lethal force?

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Did they not have tasers? Why is the first option lethal force?

From reports, they did have and use a taser. It didn't work.

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Blake shouldn't have died.

He hasn't, though he's expected to be paralyzed from the waist down.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Did they not have tasers? Why is the first option lethal force?

He overpowered them then they tried to taze him twice and it didn't work.

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

He hasn't, though he's expected to be paralyzed from the waist down.

Woops ya exhausted from a long day of travel yesterday

[flylock shox]

Another death during a BLM-Trumper clash, by the looks of things:

One person was shot and killed late Saturday in Portland, Oregon, as a large caravan of President Donald Trump supporters and Black Lives Matter protesters clashed in the streets, police said.

It wasn’t clear if the shooting was linked to fights that broke out as a caravan of about 600 vehicles was confronted by counter-demonstrators in the city’s downtown.

Police said the caravan had left the area around 8:30 p.m., and officers heard gunshots around 15 minutes later, according to a statement. Officers arrived at the shooting scene “within a minute,” police said, but the man who was shot did not survive.

An Associated Press freelance photographer heard three gunshots and then observed police medics working on the body of the victim, who appeared to be a white man. The freelancer said the man was wearing a hat bearing the insignia of Patriot Prayer, a right-wing group whose members have frequently clashed with protesters in Portland in the past.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I'll admit I am not a trained police officer. Therefore I cannot comment on what exactly should have happened.

That said, you don't need to be and expert ina field to point out when something is wrong.

I don't know how to fly a helicopter, but I know if I saw one in a tree that something went wrong.


Should a suspect be able to say "No I don't feel like getting arrested today" then drive away? Obviously not.

Should police be able to use their firearms without a suspect having a firearm present? I also think the answer is "no". The gun is for protection in a life or death scenario.

Officers should be trained on proper use of non-lethal force, tazer use, and de-escalation.

What was the encounter when the police arrived? Did they de-escalate the situation? Did they amp up the situation?

Above a poster mentioned they tried to taze the suspect but he overpowered them. As someone not trained in the use of tasers I have to ask 'how'? In videos of suspects being tazed that I have seen, the officer is a distance away, and fires the tazer in a similar fashion to a gun. There were two officers there and the suspect over powered both? How can an officer have the ability to fire their gun, but not a tazer?

The officer fired at the suspected back 7 times. Was that excessive? As a lay person that seems excessive. Also as a lay person 7 times from point blank with only 4 hitting the suspect also seems worrisome.

The question that keeps coming up is "what would you have done?"

The issue there is, it isn't up to the general public to answer that question.

If suspects in worse situations can be detained and arrested, why wasn't that the case here?


Yesterday, there was an active shooter in my hometown. We heard the police sirens in our living room. We canceled plans to go out, locked the doors, and stayed inside.

The police arrested the suspect. Without shooting him.

Justin Bourque the Moncton Shooter was arrested without firing in him.

Remember the van rampage in downtown Toronto? The suspect was arrested without shooting him, even while he was trying to escalate the situation with a gun drawn on him.

That doesn't mean that it always happens that way. The Parliament Hill shooter was taken out, as was the Portapique shooter. But neither of them were shot in the back, and both were actively engaged in open fire with law enforcement.

The reason I bring those up is that clearly the training level is different in Canada. It appears that Canadian law enforcement believes in using a firearm as last resort. It appears that there are multiple techniques used to subdue and detain suspects.

It appears that isn't done in the US. Not to the same extent.

To me, it appears that officers in the Jacob Blake incident weren't adequately trained.

What should they have done? It appears from a layman cursory review that they should have been better trained (which is in the police force and not the fault of the officers themselves per say).

Regardless, firing at someone's back, in particular someone who doesn't have a firearm's back, seven times, is not the correct answer.



I do think the police in the US need better training and I wonder how much they get once hired.

There needs to be a discussion about the role of the police, and how to best serve and protect the public.

Incidents like Jacob Blake, Breanna Taylor, Elijah McClain, and George Floyd are causing those conversations. We just need to be careful to ensure the conversations go in the direction of bettering society and not shift to where police go from upholding the law to actually being the law.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Should police be able to use their firearms without a suspect having a firearm present? I also think the answer is "no". The gun is for protection in a life or death scenario.

How do you deal with the fact that if the officer has a gun, a gun is always present?

That's the part that always gives me pause. Sure, definitely, go with the taser first. That will diminish the number of incidents that get past the "non-lethal force" phase. But as we've seen many times, it doesn't always work. Then what measures do you use? Once you're in a physical struggle with a suspect, that suspect has access to a firearm - yours. As a cop, you have to assume that he's going to try to take your gun and kill you with it. Even if he incapacitates you with just his hands, he can still take your gun and shoot you. So how do you deal with that problem?

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

Another death during a BLM-Trumper clash, by the looks of things:

The Trump campaign is gonna have a field day with this one. I can see the spin already:

"Innocent American patriot murdered in cold blood by Biden-supporting Antifa/BLM terrorist!"

[MillerTime GFG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Simplifying it to fit my narrative? Come on dude, be fair, you’re the one who said “don’t resist arrest, don’t get shot” and we both know that’s exactly what I was responding to.

Again, who is changing things up to fit their narrative? You’re the one peddling the unfounded “he went for a gun!” nonsense and repeatedly saying he had “warrants” and touting the police union line of him putting an officer in a headlock (something neither the investigator nor the Blake’s attorney supports). Don’t act like you’re not happy to add a little seasoning to fit your narrative.

End of the day, having a warrant, a knife (which you don’t use), struggling with the cops, and then attempting to bounce is not a death sentence. That’s not how the justice system works, sorry.

What I’m saying is this wasn’t simply “resisting arrest”. Not all resisting arrest cases are the same. This is an extreme example of it, and there was an extreme result. There were plenty of attempts to de-escalate by the cops, to no avail. You’d think maybe after getting tased twice, you might stop? If you’re at gunpoint with cops, maybe don’t ignore it and get in your car? Why do you think cops ask for people to put their hands out of the window or hands on the dash where they can see them?

These are all things engrained into us from a very young age. His actions lead to the result.

Again, I support the BLM movement, but cannot support this particular case.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by direwolf

The Trump campaign is gonna have a field day with this one. I can see the spin already:

"Innocent American patriot murdered in cold blood by Biden-supporting Antifa/BLM terrorist!"

They already are.



This is exceedingly dangerous. Trump has already tweeted on this, referring to the right-wingers who came into Portland to confront protesters as "PATRIOTS" and attacking Portland's mayor. He - and the Republican party - will stoke this fire as much as they can, as it plays right into their (false) "law and order" narrative.



Worse, he's not only encouraging right wingers to engage in this way, but the various militias who support him have been dreaming about this opportunity since most of them were founded. All their big talk, prepping, and weapons' stockpiling is - in their eyes, I would imagine - about to have its moment.



Another wild card in the mix: Russian and other foreign influences in social media, pouring more gasoline on the fire and directing clashes between right and left wing groups.



How far away are we from the first open gun-battle between large groups of armed civilians the streets of some US city? And if that happens, what are the odds that cools things down, rather than inflaming further violence?



Personally, I think they're in a downward spiral, and the spin is only going to accelerate.

[WhiteTiger]

You know what...this is a really good post, and I'm going to put in a bit of effort and see if I can expand on some possibilities here. i will try to do this as neutrally/in good faith as possible.

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I'll admit I am not a trained police officer. Therefore I cannot comment on what exactly should have happened.

That said, you don't need to be and expert in a field to point out when something is wrong.

I don't know how to fly a helicopter, but I know if I saw one in a tree that something went wrong.

True. But you don't know what went wrong, how it went wrong, how it could have been handled or fixed or if the helicopter in the tree was the best of a list of bad options. You can tell something went wrong, and maybe it could have gone better...or not.

Should a suspect be able to say "No I don't feel like getting arrested today" then drive away? Obviously not.

Agreed

Should police be able to use their firearms without a suspect having a firearm present? I also think the answer is "no". The gun is for protection in a life or death scenario.

I think that the answer is yes. They should not have to wait until someone is shooting at them to use their guns. Generally, since this isn't the movies, by the time someone is shooting at you, it's too late. Also, while this is less relevant to Canada, there are many places to hide a gun, including on a body. You can't assume that just because you can't see a gun, that there is no gun.

Officers should be trained on proper use of non-lethal force, tazer use, and de-escalation.

They are. Though, one could argue that one can always use more training.

What was the encounter when the police arrived? Did they de-escalate the situation? Did they amp up the situation?

Unknown, so I can't/won't speculate. However, it is generally accepted that police were called for an argument of some sort, and encountered Blake. It's alleged that there was a fight between him and 2 officers that he 'won'. He may or may not have had a knife on his person (some independent parties claim the officers were shouting at him to drop the knife), there was a taser use attempt, and then the gunshots as Blake was trying to get into the suv. Even with the video, there's a lot of unanswered questions that need answering.

Above a poster mentioned they tried to taze the suspect but he overpowered them. As someone not trained in the use of tasers I have to ask 'how'? In videos of suspects being tazed that I have seen, the officer is a distance away, and fires the tazer in a similar fashion to a gun. There were two officers there and the suspect over powered both? How can an officer have the ability to fire their gun, but not a tazer?

Tasers don't always work. For the 'shoot like a gun' variants, they shoot 2 barbs that have to both hit skin to work. So if one barb hits skin and one gets fouled up in a sweater, it won't work. If both hit skin, but are too close together they won't work (so I'm told). Both can miss. Tasers are not very reliable weapons. As to how an officer can fire a gun but not a taser...usually, as there are 2 cops, procedure would be for one to have their gun out, and one to taser (as they are so unreliable). In this particular case, it looks like the officer tried to taser Blake, and instead of rushing them, after the taser didn't work, he went in the opposite direction, heading for his driver's side door...so creating even more space between him and the officers.

The officer fired at the suspected back 7 times. Was that excessive? As a lay person that seems excessive. Also as a lay person 7 times from point blank with only 4 hitting the suspect also seems worrisome.

Again, you may be confusing real world experience with tv bullets. Officers are trained to shoot until the threat stops. That is rarely with 1-2 bullets. With the range the officer was at, 4 hits on 7 shots is some worrisome marksmanship, but also understandable, due to adrenaline, barrel-walk, etc. But yes, it's not the best marksmanship, at all.

If suspects in worse situations can be detained and arrested, why wasn't that the case here?


Yesterday, there was an active shooter in my hometown. We heard the police sirens in our living room. We canceled plans to go out, locked the doors, and stayed inside.

The police arrested the suspect. Without shooting him.

Justin Bourque the Moncton Shooter was arrested without firing in him.

Remember the van rampage in downtown Toronto? The suspect was arrested without shooting him, even while he was trying to escalate the situation with a gun drawn on him.

That doesn't mean that it always happens that way. The Parliament Hill shooter was taken out, as was the Portapique shooter. But neither of them were shot in the back, and both were actively engaged in open fire with law enforcement.

This is the biggest thing. Each situation is different and unique to itself and the people involved. How a situation goes down depends on how EVERYONE involved acts.

The reason I bring those up is that clearly the training level is different in Canada. It appears that Canadian law enforcement believes in using a firearm as last resort. It appears that there are multiple techniques used to subdue and detain suspects.

It appears that isn't done in the US. Not to the same extent.

I don't know what and how US officers are trained, so I can't/won't speak to that. I've heard that Canadian ones are much better trained. But that's only anecdotal.

To me, it appears that officers in the Jacob Blake incident weren't adequately trained.

What do you base that on? You have no knowledge of their training, how up to date it was, or any other info other than "this situation didn't turn out how I feel it should have." Sometimes, sh** happens, even if you are the best, most awesomely trained person in any field.

What should they have done? It appears from a layman cursory review that they should have been better trained (which is in the police force and not the fault of the officers themselves per say).

A layman doesn't have the experience or knowledge to make a cursory review of a situation like this. Why should a layman's thoughts be of any matter to someone in this case? I have more knowledge about police tactics in general than your average layman, and even my opinion or "cursory review" of this doesn't mean a thing. There was an optimal outcome. That did not happen. Now, there needs to be a review to determine what did happen, why it happened, and why the optimal outcome did not happen. That is not a review conducted by laypeople.

Regardless, firing at someone's back, in particular someone who doesn't have a firearm's back, seven times, is not the correct answer.

Not always. You don't know the full situation. Does he have a gun inside of his vehicle? It's alleged that he was overheard to be saying he was going to go get his gun. Does he have one? Is it in the suv? Do you know there are 3 kids in that SUV? If he gets into his SUV, is he going to shoot the police? Himself? Hold the kids hostage? Drive away over the police? He's already allegedly outfought two officers, so do you holster your gun and try to drag him out? Try to wrestle for a round 2, hoping for a better outcome? Also, you have about 3-5 seconds to figure all this out.

I do think the police in the US need better training and I wonder how much they get once hired.

Agreed, and I don't know.

There needs to be a discussion about the role of the police, and how to best serve and protect the public.

Very much agreed.

Incidents like Jacob Blake, Breanna Taylor, Elijah McClain, and George Floyd are causing those conversations. We just need to be careful to ensure the conversations go in the direction of bettering society and not shift to where police go from upholding the law to actually being the law.

Agreed.

[Lanny_McDonald]

This is getting out of hand. Trump is indeed escalating things rather than act as a calming force. Even in peaceful communities are feeling the pressure of this. Sleepy Gilbert AZ has had two nights of violent altercations between protesters on both sides. Sadly the police department has remained on the sidelines and not provided a buffer of any shape or form. Therein lays the problem with the police in America, and spilling over into Canada.

Police officers are supposed to be "peacekeepers" and provide a service to the public. But police forces have become militarized and their purview is no longer to act a "peacekeepers" but instead act as a brute force implement for enforcement of "law," or at least the ones they believe in. The role of peacekeeper, communicator, and arbiter of issues within the community have been replaced with thugs who wish to enforce their will on the community.

Do you remember the days when a cop car was highly visible, so it would act as an immediate deterrent? Remember when an officer was dressed in an actual uniform, with tie, and spit polished shoes. Their duty belt was limited to a couple pouches and their side arm? Cops were approachable and were viewed as friends to the community. Fast forward to today. Cop cars are ghosted out - monochrome ghost markings that match the color of their car, blacked out windows, and internal lights - all meant to sneak up and act as an intimidation factor. Uniforms have given way to casual battle dress fatigues (cacrgo pant BDUs) and combat boots. Duty belts have given way to duty vests so they can load up with more equipment. Cops are now armed to the teeth with multiple ways to inflict lethal and non-lethal force. Cops are no longer approachable, and most of the get off on that.

That is the largest issue in all of this. The "warrior mentality" has eliminated the peacekeeper mindset, and as a result public trust has pretty much come to an end. Without that trusted arbiter, things will continue to escalate. Until that is fixed, we are in for a very long period of distrust and continued violence.