Minneapolis PD Suffocate Unarmed Black Man Who Later Dies in Hospital

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Because the acceptable number of unforced killings by cop/excessive force resulting in grave injury or death is zero.

Cut it in half as many times as you need until you get to 0. Good luck.

Then you have effectively created an impossible demand, and prescribed outrage as the response when that demand isn't met. Anyone who does that isn't asking to be taken seriously.

There will simply never be zero of these types of deaths, unless you abolish police forces altogether. Even if you took away all their guns, all their tasers, and said, "you must now police using only your hands", the number still would not be zero.

[PsYcNeT]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1297405642848837633

my mom saw through the ring speaker that two officers were sniffing through their license plates under the carport. Mom “may i help you?”thru the ring. They said they had a warrant for me but refused to say what for. Mom told them that i was a public defender and at court. 2/6
i immediately leave my house so not to put my husband or my dog at risk should they get the right address. Driving on the road, i’m anxious that i’ll be targeted and stopped to execute the warrant.
Make it to my office, immediately start hiding out in my colleagues office who has no ####s to give should #### go sideways — there we plan to stay in the office to avoid arrest while figuring out exactly what is going on. My colleague begins by calling the pd with the warrant—
the officer who answered the phone knew me and that they were out trying to execute a warrant for me. When asked what the warrant was for they said they didn’t have to say. When asked for a copy— they said they did not have authorization to provide us with one.
The conversation switched drastically after those two questions to — “where is she? At her office. Bring her to us so we can execute the warrant and arrest her. My colleague told the police officer that would not happen without more information on the warrant.
About 5 minutes later the phone rings, my colleague answers and hands the phone to me. The guy who was trying to execute the warrant was on the phone telling me that this will get ugly if i continue to avoid arrest. Again, i am at my officer and in court at 2pm.
At this point their refusal to come to the courthouse to arrest me or arrest me at my office—was making me think something really sketchy was going on.
I was working on a attempted murder of a police officer case representing the defendant. It seemed far fetched but i was starting to think it was retaliation for that.
I called a few adas i knew would do favors for me and asked them to look into it. They later reported that the police wouldn’t give them any information about what the warrant was for— nothing. The adas checked the warrant system and a warrant for me didn’t exist.
“when the adas called me back they said the same thing “don’t know what’s going on but this is retaliation about that case. They won’t tell us anything about the warrant but it doesn’t exist. You need to stay somewhere other than your house tonight.
Don’t let them arrest you. I don’t know exactly what is going on but i do know they intend to not release you and #### with you. The cop mentioned 30 days but they are going to try to hold you for as long as they can.

[OMG!WTF!]

As long as everybody still has their precious gun you'll never get cops to shoot second and ask questions first.

[Acey]

I'm personally still kinda waiting for more concrete info on the Wisconsin incident before having any real opinion on it, other than to say it's bad news for everyone involved. They claim to have attempted to taser him first, to which he was presumably unresponsive but we don't know as it is not shown.

Trying to ignore police attempts to arrest you means you have a good chance of dying... but then there's also the risk of them killing you once you're in custody too, even after having complied. Seems like a lose-lose.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Then you have effectively created an impossible demand, and prescribed outrage as the response when that demand isn't met. Anyone who does that isn't asking to be taken seriously.

There will simply never be zero of these types of deaths, unless you abolish police forces altogether. Even if you took away all their guns, all their tasers, and said, "you must now police using only your hands", the number still would not be zero.

I think you're looking at this from the wrong point of view.

The goal is that these types of death be taken seriously and for there to be consequences for the police officers involved. The demand is not to "bring it to zero", it's to bring justice to those officers and then in turn the trend of deaths will come down (and hopefully close to zero).

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Then you have effectively created an impossible demand, and prescribed outrage as the response when that demand isn't met. Anyone who does that isn't asking to be taken seriously.

There will simply never be zero of these types of deaths, unless you abolish police forces altogether. Even if you took away all their guns, all their tasers, and said, "you must now police using only your hands", the number still would not be zero.

The expectation that there will be zero is impossible.

The expectation that zero should be the only acceptable number is the bare minimum we should expect of the people we pay to protect us.

There will be outrage so long as anything more than zero is acceptable. The incidents will happen, no matter what, we agree. But so long as there are people and police forces and courts that believe they are acceptable, there will be people reminding them that they are not.

Excessive force causing injury or death should not require being spread on social media, protests, riots, etc for severe consequences to result. So long as it does, and so long as cops who needlessly shoot people or commonly use excessive force get a slap on the wrist or no punishment at all, then it is clearly not meeting the minimum standard we should expect of police.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Because the acceptable number of unforced killings by cop/excessive force resulting in grave injury or death is zero.

Cut it in half as many times as you need until you get to 0. Good luck.

The acceptable number of murders and rapes is zero. But murders and rapes still happen, and will always happen.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The acceptable number of murders and rapes is zero. But murders and rapes still happen, and will always happen.

So we shouldn't hold murderers and rapists accountable?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Looch City

I think you're looking at this from the wrong point of view.

The goal is that these types of death be taken seriously and for there to be consequences for the police officers involved. The demand is not to "bring it to zero", it's to bring justice to those officers and then in turn the trend of deaths will come down (and hopefully close to zero).

I don't think I am looking at it from the wrong point of view, because I agree 100% with everything written in your second paragraph. The goal is a gradual decrease, and that can be accomplished through precisely what you've suggested - serious sanctions being applied to officers in cases where those sanctions are warranted. No more circling the wagons. The incidents need to be investigated, and the officers tried and convicted when they're guilty. When you say the demand is not bring it to zero, well, I was responding to Pepsifree, who said that was precisely what it should be.

What you're suggesting is not only totally reasonable, in my view, it's essential. I'm simply saying that if, in contrast, the demand is "zero of these incidents" and the response when that isn't met is a riot, then there will always be riots, because there will never be zero of these. And in the short term, there will continue to be many of both.

[combustiblefuel]

Jesus, His 3 kids were in the suv there reporting now. That's even more reckless.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

So we shouldn't hold murderers and rapists accountable?

Where did I say the police (and murderers and rapists) shouldn't be held accountable?

• The way police operate needs to change.
  
• The change will take effect over years and decades. We'll know progress is being made by the numbers of fatalities.
  
• While that change is happening, people will still be killed by police. Rioting every time that happens is unlikely to achieve anything worthwhile.

There's no scenario in which we aren't seeing videos of people being killed by police 6 or 8 years from now. However, the existence of those videos will have no correlation to whether systemic changes are being undertaken and fewer people are actually being killed by police.

[PepsiFree]

Feels like Cliff and Corsi are being purposely obtuse here. Let's roll back the tape back to dobbles post again.

Originally Posted by dobbles

I think you are entirely missing the point of the protests. The point is not that people are shot by police, it is that police murder citizens when they are not a threat. That their brutality goes totally unchecked.

I appreciate that dobbles said you were missing the point, and you proceeded to continue to miss the point even when it was explained. Yes, police shootings will always happen. Fascinating point! However, that's not the point. The issue is the commonality of them as well as the consequences (lack of) suggest they are at least partially acceptable.

Yes, murder and rapes happen and they're not acceptable. Fantastic! Why aren't we protesting every time there's a new murder and rape? Could it be that we feel that the potential consequences are appropriate for someone who murders or rapes someone? Or that we have some level of confidence that the murderer/rapist will receive consequences? Is there not outrage every time society feels a murderer or rapist gets a laughably light punishment? Do you not see how, maybe, this might be a similar situation?

So until society has confidence that unnecessary police shootings/excessive force are treated the same as a similar crime (assault, manslaughter, etc.) with similar punishments, there will always be outrage. Because until that time, you are suggesting that these things are more acceptable that the crimes they compare to, which is saying that acceptability is more than zero.

Anyone who believes these protests are about the concept of police shootings and the need for them to reach zero isn't to be taken seriously. What a silly straw man.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Feels like Cliff and Corsi are being purposely obtuse here.

SOP then.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Where did I say the police (and murderers and rapists) shouldn't be held accountable?

• The way police operate needs to change.
  
• The change will take effect over years and decades. We'll know progress is being made by the numbers of fatalities.
  
• While that change is happening, people will still be killed by police. Rioting every time that happens is unlikely to achieve anything worthwhile.

There's no scenario in which we aren't seeing videos of people being killed by police 6 or 8 years from now. However, the existence of those videos will have no correlation to whether systemic changes are being undertaken and fewer people are actually being killed by police.

Your second bullet has been going on for years and decades already.

Yet we're still here...

And then you wonder why people in the streets are angry?

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Where did I say the police (and murderers and rapists) shouldn't be held accountable?

• The way police operate needs to change.
  
• The change will take effect over years and decades. We'll know progress is being made by the numbers of fatalities.
  
• While that change is happening, people will still be killed by police. Rioting every time that happens is unlikely to achieve anything worthwhile.

There's no scenario in which we aren't seeing videos of people being killed by police 6 or 8 years from now. However, the existence of those videos will have no correlation to whether systemic changes are being undertaken and fewer people are actually being killed by police.

^^ What Pepsi said.

I do take issue with the idea that the affects will take "decades". Is that the pace of progress we are looking for? I think there has been a significant change in the last 6 months or so as to what police actions are acceptable. I attribute much of that to the social unrest currently on exhibit in the US.

None of which to say that the rate will drop to zero, ever.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

FI appreciate that dobbles said you were missing the point, and you proceeded to continue to miss the point even when it was explained. Yes, police shootings will always happen. Fascinating point! However, that's not the point. The issue is the commonality of them as well as the consequences (lack of) suggest they are at least partially acceptable.

We're clearly talking about different things here, because I have said several times that I agree with all of this, and as noted, I agreed with Looch City about the path forward. You thanked his post so I am guessing we're on the same page.

So until society has confidence that unnecessary police shootings/excessive force are treated the same as a similar crime (assault, manslaughter, etc.) with similar punishments, there will always be outrage.

And I'm saying that's going to be happening for a while now, because apparently "confidence that police shootings are treated the same as a similar crime with similar punishments" isn't going to be happening any time soon. And I don't think that's great news for stability in the USA.

I don't know why you're repeatedly making long posts about things I either didn't disagree with or didn't say. It's like you're trying to manufacture conflict where none exists.

Anyone who believes these protests are about the concept of police shootings and the need for them to reach zero isn't to be taken seriously. What a silly straw man.

I believed your post was about that, because you said:

Originally Posted by Pepsifree

Because the acceptable number of unforced killings by cop/excessive force resulting in grave injury or death is zero.

Obviously very silly of me to take what you wrote seriously.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I believed your post was about that, because you said:

Obviously very silly of me to take what you wrote seriously.

Something can be completely unacceptable and yet still happen. Why are we acting like this is a difficult concept? You're generally a smart guy, I'm not sure why this is confusing.

Stealing money from work is unacceptable, it still happens, appropriate punishments ensue.

Punching a stranger in the face is unacceptable, it still happens, appropriate punishments ensue.

Killing someone is unacceptable, it still happens, appropriate punishments ensue... unless you're a police officer.

Obviously very silly of you to believe that deeming something completely unacceptable is the same as asking for it to *poof* vanish out of thin air. Cliff is acting like the outrage is due to the act, and ignoring basically the entire context (which includes the frequency and the consequences).

So long as it's acceptable, people will be outraged. If the number of occurrences remains the same and the punishments become severe, people won't be outraged. If they occurrences drop and the punishments remain light, people will still be outraged.

Doesn't matter how far the cases go down. The number of cases is not the issue on it's own. You could have one case in five years, and if the officer gets a light punishment or none at all, people will be outraged.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

So long as it's acceptable, people will be outraged. If the number of occurrences remains the same and the punishments become severe, people won't be outraged. If they occurrences drop and the punishments remain light, people will still be outraged.

This is where we're differing. People aren't waiting to see what the consequences will be to the officer before they start the outrage. The outrage begins immediately. Fair enough to say that this has something to do with the assumption that consequences will be light due to historical precedent, but I don't even think it matters anymore. Chauvin had his entire life annihilated and was charged with multiple counts of manslaughter and murder, and that clearly did not affect the degree of outrage. Charges were laid in the Rayshard Brooks incident, that didn't seem to make a lot of difference in the response.

Honestly, at this point, if this guy got charged with murder, and the next guy and the next guy, would that really make a difference in the response by outraged people? It really does seem, to me, like the outrage in the aftermath of events like this one is directed at "this happened again", more than "this happened again and nothing will be done about it". But the only way to know for sure, I guess, is for something to be done about it consistently, and then we'll see if the riots continue to happen.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Where did I say the police (and murderers and rapists) shouldn't be held accountable?

• The way police operate needs to change.
  
• The change will take effect over years and decades. We'll know progress is being made by the numbers of fatalities.
  
• While that change is happening, people will still be killed by police. Rioting every time that happens is unlikely to achieve anything worthwhile.

There's no scenario in which we aren't seeing videos of people being killed by police 6 or 8 years from now. However, the existence of those videos will have no correlation to whether systemic changes are being undertaken and fewer people are actually being killed by police.

Change would be real quick if the police went down for murder every time they screwed up, every time, just like the rest of us.
You and I dont get to shoot someone in the back, ever, under any circumstance, you or I would be charged with murder right there, straight to jail do not pass go do not get 200 bucks, if we did that to cops the worst of the shootings ends immediatly

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is where we're differing. People aren't waiting to see what the consequences will be to the officer before they start the outrage. The outrage begins immediately. Fair enough to say that this has something to do with the assumption that consequences will be light due to historical precedent, but I don't even think it matters anymore. Chauvin had his entire life annihilated and was charged with multiple counts of manslaughter and murder, and that clearly did not affect the degree of outrage. Charges were laid in the Rayshard Brooks incident, that didn't seem to make a lot of difference in the response.

Honestly, at this point, if this guy got charged with murder, and the next guy and the next guy, would that really make a difference in the response by outraged people? It really does seem, to me, like the outrage in the aftermath of events like this one is directed at "this happened again", more than "this happened again and nothing will be done about it". But the only way to know for sure, I guess, is for something to be done about it consistently, and then we'll see if the riots continue to happen.

Really feels like the summary of this is: “but where does it stop!?”

It stops when that’s the norm.