Minneapolis PD Suffocate Unarmed Black Man Who Later Dies in Hospital

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I understood that the original arrest was for a DUI, but I'm just basing that on what was written here. I imagine had he not run after grabbing the taser, he would have been arrested on multiple charges of assault, and whatever they charge you for when you try to take a police officer's weapon.

Edit: oh and resisting arrest obviously (or rather, s129, which is the same idea). Editedit: or rather, the equivalent in the jurisdiction. Obviously this wasn't in Canada.

[bigtmac19]

I thought he fell asleep in the drive thru because he was so drunk

[ignite09]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I understood that the original arrest was for a DUI, but I'm just basing that on what was written here. I imagine had he not run after grabbing the taser, he would have been arrested on multiple charges of assault, and whatever they charge you for when you try to take a police officer's weapon.

Edit: oh and resisting arrest obviously (or rather, s129, which is the same idea).

Ok, well with all due respect, you mentioned a "violent individual who had just comitted several crimes". That sounds a bit disingenuous. The video is incomplete unfortunately, but I tend to put the onus on the professionally trained police officer to keep the situation from escalating. How can you not peacefully take down a guy passed out at a Wendy's drive thru.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Well, first of all, I think people who haven't done a lot of it tend to underestimate how hard it is to subdue a person who doesn't want to be subdued. You are, at minimum, a 100+ lb animal. In that guy's case, 200+ lbs. Ever try to subdue a large dog? You're bigger and stronger than any dog. It's a lot harder to get a person under control than it is to slip out of control.

Second, it's not the police's fault if they're arresting a person and that person chooses to resist arrest or assault them. So placing the onus on them for that strikes me as absurd. I suppose it would have been much easier to subdue him here had they beat the living hell out of him, or put him in a choke hold, but obviously, we also don't want them to do that either. So it seems like the policy is to be, just let him go.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

And we’re not immune here either. A Toronto cop arrested for his part in underage sex trafficking is only suspended with pay.

Good job police union. Like what the actual ####.

https://ottawacitizen.com/pmn/news-p...-84acb371a410/

Cecil do you realize how many posters hate when people throw out these kinds of softballs for me to respond to?

“Employer gives out discipline X, must be the Union’s fault!”

My guess is the Ottawa PD probably realizes that if this officer is acquitted of the charges(which if he is guilty of I hope results in him being punished to the fullest extent of the law) then terminating his employment would result in a lawsuit.

But by all means keep trying to blame the Unions for what is going on. I’m sure drawing attention away from the real issues is gonna help prevent another tragic incident resulting from systemic racism. Oh wait, no it won’t.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Well, no, the risk to the public is not zero, because letting a violent individual who has just committed several crimes go in a residential neighborhood does carry some potential risk to the public. Maybe we all agree that the risk is acceptable. There's also the broader policy choice that we're going to let criminals go if they run from the police, and presumably try to track them down later. Unclear if the thinking is that they'll cooperate at that later time, or what.

It's fine if that's the policy we want. Also okay if, as you suggest, the policy is only to shoot him if he's suspected of murder (or multiple murders was I guess what you were suggesting). Sure, that's a decision we can make as a society about how we want law enforcement to behave. Just have to be okay with the notion that in that situation, that guy is going to be running around your neighborhood with a taser, among other consequences.

Well, yes, it is very close to zero. A burned out taser is about as dangerous as a squirt gun. It might have had 3 charges I guess but it's non lethal according to cops so not a big threat. And zero threat beyond 10 feet. The guy was sleeping in his car when the cops found him. It's a pretty big leap to assume he'd harm anyone not trying to arrest him.



Policy choice? The only choice these guys had was to go back to the gym and work on their PT...the one cop was about 30 feet behind in a 50 foot chase. The policy is already to contain them and track them down like police do all the time. It's why they have back up cops, choppers, night vision, and dogs. It doesn't seem like there is a policy discussion to be had here. Just don't shoot people in the back.

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Well, yes, it is very close to zero. A burned out taser is about as dangerous as a squirt gun. It might have had 3 charges I guess but it's non lethal according to cops so not a big threat. And zero threat beyond 10 feet. The guy was sleeping in his car when the cops found him. It's a pretty big leap to assume he'd harm anyone not trying to arrest him.



Policy choice? The only choice these guys had was to go back to the gym and work on their PT...the one cop was about 30 feet behind in a 50 foot chase. The policy is already to contain them and track them down like police do all the time. It's why they have back up cops, choppers, night vision, and dogs. It doesn't seem like there is a policy discussion to be had here. Just don't shoot people in the back.

Aside from the fact he failed a breathalyzer and thus was being arrested for impaired driving. I thought we wanted drunk drivers off the street. Now it's only if they're cooperative?

Also, 3 charges in a taser? That's a complete fabrication.

Honestly, please stop the misinformation.



Sent from my HD1905 using Tapatalk

[ignite09]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Well, first of all, I think people who haven't done a lot of it tend to underestimate how hard it is to subdue a person who doesn't want to be subdued. You are, at minimum, a 100+ lb animal. In that guy's case, 200+ lbs. Ever try to subdue a large dog? You're bigger and stronger than any dog. It's a lot harder to get a person under control than it is to slip out of control.

Second, it's not the police's fault if they're arresting a person and that person chooses to resist arrest or assault them. So placing the onus on them for that strikes me as absurd. I suppose it would have been much easier to subdue him here had they beat the living hell out of him, or put him in a choke hold, but obviously, we also don't want them to do that either. So it seems like the policy is to be, just let him go.

You think it's absurd to put the onus on the professionals to try to limit injury or loss of life in a confrontation between authority and civilians? What about mental health issues, or pure despondency during times like we're all going through now Corsi. Police are there to serve the community. To protect the safety and livelihood of all of us. How can you say they shouldn't be held to a standard where people aren't gunned down during episodes of self destruction or hopelessness. Cops need to relearn what de-escalation means. That should be priority #1 as far as I'm concerned.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Yes, policy choice. Based on what you're saying the policy is, when people run, try to catch them - presumably until you're putting yourself at risk by continuing to chase them. Unless they're accused of murder, then shoot them. That's a decision about where to draw the line, and when we as a society are okay with our police using deadly force. That is a policy decision with consequences. One of those consequences is that perpetrators are more likely to run, because they know no one will shoot them, and more likely to escape.

If we want this to be the policy, that's fine, but go into it eyes open and able to say, "yeah, that's a price I'm willing to pay". Don't try to convince yourself that there's no downside whatsoever.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by ignite09

sorry for my ignorance, but what was this man accused of agian?

nm

[ignite09]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Aside from the fact he failed a breathalyzer and thus was being arrested for impaired driving. I thought we wanted drunk drivers off the street. Now it's only if they're cooperative?

Also, 3 charges in a taser? That's a complete fabrication.

Honestly, please stop the misinformation.



Sent from my HD1905 using Tapatalk

Your honest takeaway from this conversation is that some of us believe you should only be charged if you co-operate? C'mon guy.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Aside from the fact he failed a breathalyzer and thus was being arrested for impaired driving. I thought we wanted drunk drivers off the street. Now it's only if they're cooperative?

Also, 3 charges in a taser? That's a complete fabrication.

Honestly, please stop the misinformation.



Sent from my HD1905 using Tapatalk

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

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by ignite09

You think it's absurd to put the onus on the professionals to try to limit injury or loss of life in a confrontation between authority and civilians?

No, they should try, but if they get assaulted, it's not their fault for failing to prevent their own assault. That's what's absurd.

The onus is on everyone to not assault people. If you assault someone, that is your fault. This seems fairly obvious to me.

How can you say they shouldn't be held to a standard where people aren't gunned down during a episodes of self destruction or hopelessness. Cops need to relearn what de-escalation means. That should be priority #1 as far as I'm concerned.

I didn't. I said you can hold them to whatever standard you like, in terms of where people are or aren't gunned down. Just think through the consequences of that decision and be comfortable with what it entails. And at least make an effort to understand the perspective of people who don't agree with your personal view of where that line should be drawn.

[8 Ball]

He grabbed a taser and ran. As another poster said, call in the K-9 unit. If he grabbed an officer’s gun different story.

Originally Posted by ignite09

Your honest takeaway from this conversation is that some of us believe you should only be charged if you co-operate? C'mon guy.

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

Originally Posted by GGG

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

Exactly what I'm saying.

This thread is a gongshow lol.

Sent from my HD1905 using Tapatalk

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Aside from the fact he failed a breathalyzer and thus was being arrested for impaired driving. I thought we wanted drunk drivers off the street. Now it's only if they're cooperative?

Also, 3 charges in a taser? That's a complete fabrication.

Honestly, please stop the misinformation.

Well I sure as hell don't want to shoot drunk drivers as they RUN away. What the hell man?



Ok, so Tasers have endless charges. They're 100% non lethal according to police so you don't have to shoot they guy unless you don't want to be the cop that got his Taser stolen.

Yes, policy choice. Based on what you're saying the policy is, when people run, try to catch them - presumably until you're putting yourself at risk by continuing to chase them.

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.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Exactly what I'm saying.

This thread is a gongshow lol.

Sent from my HD1905 using Tapatalk

You made an equally absurd question asking if the police should only arrest those who cooperate. Why would you expect a different response. But your answer does answer my question that you are saying that the actions of the altercation are what give the officers the right to shoot him. ( if I am wrong with this please let me know)

So how long after the assault of the officer is it acceptable to shoot someone?

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Well I sure as hell don't want to shoot drunk drivers as they RUN away. What the hell man?



Ok, so Tasers have endless charges. They're 100% non lethal according to police so you don't have to shoot they guy unless you don't want to be the cop that got his Taser stolen.






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.

I just think there's a lot of naivety in this thread. Like, it's just a taser so take your 5 seconds and move on. That's complete nonsense and you know it.

Sent from my HD1905 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by GGG

You made an equally absurd question asking if the police should only arrest those who cooperate. Why would you expect a different response. But your answer does answer my question that you are saying that the actions of the altercation are what give the officers the right to shoot him. ( if I am wrong with this please let me know)



So how long after the assault of the officer is it acceptable to shoot someone?

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

Sent from my HD1905 using Tapatalk