Minnesota officer shoots dead another innocent black victim

Fr D Maugire

GreeBo wrote: »

Accepting that the gun was an honest mistake, do people really think that a tazer is acceptable response to someone fleeing a traffic stop?

But I thought it was because when the police pulled the presons record, there was an outstanding record which the police in the US will arrest for. Then it escalates to resisting arrest which increases the risk of force dramatically.

Again I have seen this happen in real like. Someone I knew was at a party, neighbours called the police for noise so they arrived and when they took ids, it turned out that the guy I knew had an outstanding minor crime from another state, was arrested on the spot and put in jail. He was white. Imagine being arrested for attending a party?

There is little doubt that the police in the US are heavy handed, they don't do nuance like we do here. You can be in cuffs very quickly in the US for very little.

GreeBo

Ckendrick wrote: »

He wasn’t really fleeing a traffic stop. He was fleeing serious firearms charges and an assault charge that involved choking a woman.
The traffic stop ceased being just a traffic stop once that had been established

He had a warrant for his arrest due to missing a court date, again does that warrant a tazer response?

Fandymo

celtic_oz wrote: »

The guy in this video was shot, thats why people run

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OflGwyWcft8

The guy who was told multiple times, ‘don’t reach behind your back, stop reaching backwards’, but kept reaching behind his back?? Should the cops wait until they’ve a bullet between the eyes before shooting??

GreeBo

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Should change the thread title, he wasn't exactly innocent.

What was he guilty of exactly? Resisting arrest isn't a capital crime, well not in law anyway.

Galwayguy35

GreeBo wrote: »

What was he guilty of exactly? Resisting arrest isn't a capital crime, well not in law anyway.

If he didn't resist he would be still breathing.

Fr D Maugire

GreeBo wrote: »

What was he guilty of exactly? Resisting arrest isn't a capital crime, well not in law anyway.

Dude, resisting arrest in the US is asking for a world of trouble. Being shot dead is most definitely OTT, but seriously do not resist arrest.

Anyone else remember how obnoxious the US immigration officials used to be in Dublin airport years ago. If you went off script at all or even attempted frivolity or just being friendly, you were asking for a hard time. Now imagine what their police are like.

Fandymo

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Dude, resisting arrest in the US is asking for a world of trouble. Being shot dead is most definitely OTT, but seriously do not resist arrest.

Anyone else remember how obnoxious the US immigration officials used to be in Dublin airport years ago. If you went off script at all or even attempted frivolity or just being friendly, you were asking for a hard time. Now imagine what their police are like.

When we were heading to the US a few years ago, one of the lads had nitroglycerin on his runners (from the lines on a football pitch we presumed), all of our tickets from then on were marked, we were pulled in at every US airport we went through. LAX, SF. Scary when lads with M16s are barking orders at you when you’re hungover and tired as fcuk.

Danzy

GreeBo wrote: »

He had a warrant for his arrest due to missing a court date, again does that warrant a tazer response?

No, but fighting the police and diving in to his car like that warranted a tasering and you couldn't blame an officer if they reached deliberately for the gun in such a scenario.

Being Arrested for murder doesn't warrant a tasering, Being a violent or threatening ahole while interacting with police does and more, Jo matter the reason they are talking to one.

There is an element of having to grow up and take responsibility as well. This was an adult with a child.

Being a violent fool is a dangerous hobby.

GreeBo

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

If he didn't resist he would be still breathing.

Possibly but so what?
If I spat at a cop and they shot me would that be ok because if I didn't spit I would be still breathing?

Why have courts if the cops can hand out death sentences if they feel like it?

Fr D Maugire

Fandymo wrote: »

When we were heading to the US a few years ago, one of the lads had nitroglycerin on his runners (from the lines on a football pitch we presumed), all of our tickets from then on were marked, we were pulled in at every US airport we went through. LAX, SF. Scary when lads with M16s are barking orders at you when you’re hungover and tired as fcuk.

My visa had the wrong dates on it(put there by US officials) and the officer gave me such a hard time about it. It was if I had put the visa in my passport and I was trying to point out it was US officials who put it there without raising the ire any further, they were horrendous, but have thankfully improved over time.

Thankfully I have never had any interactions with the police over there, but know that you do not step out of line in any shape regardless of race.

GreeBo

Danzy wrote: »

No, but fighting the police and diving in to his car like that warranted a tasering and you couldn't blame an officer if they reached deliberately for the gun in such a scenario.

Being Arrested for murder doesn't warrant a tasering, Being a violent or threatening ahole while interacting with police does and more.

Being a violent fool is a dangerous hobby.

But does it really warrant a tazer? Was he violent or threatening? Any escalation of force should be in self defence or defence of others, not because the subject isnt complying.

GreeBo

Fandymo wrote: »

The guy who was told multiple times, ‘don’t reach behind your back, stop reaching backwards’, but kept reaching behind his back?? Should the cops wait until they’ve a bullet between the eyes before shooting??

The 3 times over the limit drunk guy who was pulling up his shorts after being made crawl on all fours?

Maybe police should wait to actually see a gun before shooting in self defence?
If you are not willing to wait then policing ain't for you, shoot first and ask questions later isn't acceptable, at least not anymore.

Danzy

GreeBo wrote: »

But does it really warrant a tazer? Was he violent or threatening? Any escalation of force should be in self defence or defence of others, not because the subject isnt complying.

If he had no warrant, everything was in order with his car and wrestled with them and dived into the car like that, that warranted a tasering and there would be enough justification to shoot as well.

Why he was pulled over no longer mattered when he started fighting and running.

He could have killed several and survived the arrest, just by not acting threatening to the police.

He was playing a grown up game and he acted like a violent fool.

He was a theat to the officer's present and in trying to get away, a threat to the public. He crashed into a car when escaping, thankfully he didn't kill the occupant.

Galwayguy35

GreeBo wrote: »

Possibly but so what?
If I spat at a cop and they shot me would that be ok because if I didn't spit I would be still breathing?

Why have courts if the cops can hand out death sentences if they feel like it?

Thats not really a fair statement, in this case she didn't set out to kill him and in cases where unarmed people have been shot the officer who did it has been brought before the courts.

Bare in mind as well that in the US an officer leaving for work in the morning might not make it home alive that evening after being shot by a gang member.

Over there when they approach a car they have no idea if the person or people in it are armed and mean to do them harm.

Fr D Maugire

GreeBo wrote: »

The 3 times over the limit drunk guy who was pulling up his shorts after being made crawl on all fours?

Maybe police should wait to actually see a gun before shooting in self defence?
If you are not willing to wait then policing ain't for you, shoot first and ask questions later isn't acceptable, at least not anymore.

You really do not know anything of the US Police force, they are very Heavy handed. Spend anytime in the US and you will notice just how visible they are compared to here in Ireland. Night and day. That is not trying to justify what they do, just pointing out the reality of things over there. When you see what people get away with here, I always think if this was the US, you would be so busted.

Ckendrick

GreeBo wrote: »

He had a warrant for his arrest due to missing a court date, again does that warrant a tazer response?

You don’t seem to realise that he was being tasered because he was resisting arrest and trying to flee the scene? Why do you think he was being tasered??

Ckendrick

GreeBo wrote: »

Possibly but so what?
If I spat at a cop and they shot me would that be ok because if I didn't spit I would be still breathing?

Why have courts if the cops can hand out death sentences if they feel like it?

You don’t get shot for spitting at the police.
I mean...you should get a slap in the mouth with a baton, but you won’t.
And you certainly won’t get shot.
You don’t appear to have watched the body cam footage of this arrest at all.

Potential-Monke

Tell me how wrote: »

Newsflash, if you have not been motivated to call for action to help yourself, or those like you who are being treated unfairly just because of who you are, that's a privilege.

Does this extend to exclusion, assaults and constant harassment and bullying due to a single visual factor you were born with? I have often been motivated to call for action, but apparently the above doesn't apply to red heads.

GreeBo wrote: »

But does it really warrant a tazer? Was he violent or threatening? Any escalation of force should be in self defence or defence of others, not because the subject isnt complying.

#

Actually, the more I think about it, the tazer might not have been a good idea either. I remember where the RSU were getting tazers over here, and all the hype surrounding it, one of the things we were told is that you would never taze someone in a car, because the electricity could force their leg to freeze on the accelerator, which could cause further issues. But yes, tazering is one of the first ports of call to stop someone resisting, especially if you don't know what they're up to. We can say it now, but at the time who's to say he wasn't getting back into the car to get a gun? You can't say he 100% wasn't at the time.

GreeBo wrote: »

The 3 times over the limit drunk guy who was pulling up his shorts after being made crawl on all fours?

Maybe police should wait to actually see a gun before shooting in self defence?
If you are not willing to wait then policing ain't for you, shoot first and ask questions later isn't acceptable, at least not anymore.

Ah, if a load of cops were pointing a gun at me telling me to not reach back, they can look at my shiny white arse all they want, I will not be moving my hands!

I don't understand non-compliance. If there's an issue, racial or otherwise, deal with it after the arrest. Non-compliance leads to an increased heavey handed response, ranging from physical, to tazers and eventually firearms. It's the same here, you resist, you increase the chances of you getting hurt. The police are there to ensure public safety, that also includes themselves.

biko

How do the defund people think this should have played out?
Two social workers pleading with Duante to not flee?

"Duante, you and Emajay are wanted for choking and robbing a woman.
Please come with us and we'll sort this out over a cup of tea.
Maybe you can say you're sorry for what you did?
Don't drive off, pleeeeease"

Actually I don't think the police that stopped him knew he had warrants at the time of his arrest.
It was a routine stop for something and Duante escalated it as he knew of his warrants and simply didn't want to go to jail.
All will be revealed at the hearings to come.

osarusan

The officer, Kim Potter, has been charged with second-degree manslaughter.

This involves "culpable negligence" and taking an "unreasonable risk".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56752821

osarusan

I believe her when she says it was an accident, but her saying it was an accident may be what gets her in trouble.

If she had said she believed her life was in danger and the firing of the gun was deliberate (I mean, she said that even though it was actually an accident and she meant to use the tazer), she'd probably be ok.

But admitting the mistake is possibly admitting the culpable negligence the prosecution would need to prove.

Potential-Monke

osarusan wrote: »

I believe her when she says it was an accident, but her saying it was an accident may be what gets her in trouble.

If she had said she believed her life was in danger and the firing of the gun was deliberate (I mean, she said that even though it was actually an accident and she meant to use the tazer), she'd probably be ok.

But admitting the mistake is possibly admitting the culpable negligence the prosecution would need to prove.

She couldn't have used that defence because of her words immediately afterwards. It was not intentional, and she will be seeing the inside of a jail cell for a few years.

osarusan

Potential-Monke wrote: »

She couldn't have used that defence because of her words immediately afterwards.

That's what I meant. If she'd kept quiet or lied it might have worked, but by immediately telling the truth and saying it was an accident, she's in deep trouble.

Sudden Valley

The female cop obviously messed up but I don't think there was any malice in what she did. I think some posters here think resisting arrest should be a death sentence, like we live in Judge Dredd times.

silverharp

charging her seems to be about trying to keep the mob happy

https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1382416407669972996

Potential-Monke

Sudden Valley wrote: »

The female cop obviously messed up but I don't think there was any malice in what she did. I think some posters here think resisting arrest should be a death sentence, like we live in Judge Dredd times.

I agree with the first part, but not so much with the second. I'd put it that there are posters on here, myself included, who believe that by resisting arrest you're increasing your chances of getting shot. I'd imagine very few, if any, believe resisting gives a green light to just shooting someone, but most of the developed world knows at this stage how things could go down if you resist arrest, regardless of the reason for the arrest.

Add in the already heightened tension in that city/area, the history of it, the current ongoing court case, the intent by the few to cause riots and havoc, which then spreads to mob mentality. Anyone with 2 brain cells would know to not resist and comply. Cameras are everywhere, it would take a very brave/stupid cop to shoot someone who is complying. It could happen, but the chances are far less than getting shot while resisting/trying to escape, or from the cops point of view, possibly reaching for a weapon.

Some people apparently want cops to get shot first before shooting back.

nolivesmatter

GreeBo wrote: »

But does it really warrant a tazer? Was he violent or threatening? Any escalation of force should be in self defence or defence of others, not because the subject isnt complying.

I think it does warrant it. I don't understand how you think the police should have handled a guy trying to break away from them and escape in a car if not to use a non-lethal stun weapon.

Honestly I don't think it's worth trying to argue for a persons right to resist arrest and escape police without being tased.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

nolivesmatter wrote: »

I think it does warrant it. I don't understand how you think the police should have handled a guy trying to break away from them and escape in a car if not to use a non-lethal stun weapon.

Honestly I don't think it's worth trying to argue for a persons right to resist arrest and escape police without being tased.

Depends on whether the subject is armed.

For me, armed response is only acceptable if the officer's life or health - or that of someone else - is threatened. I'm assuming that, in attempting to flee, that's not the case, so firing a warning shot. I'd be interested in knowing what the official training recommends.

That said, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the use of tasers.

Danzy

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Depends on whether the subject is armed.

For me, armed response is only acceptable if the officer's life or health - or that of someone else - is threatened. I'm assuming that, in attempting to flee, that's not the case, so firing a warning shot. I'd be interested in knowing what the official training recommends.

That said, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the use of tasers.

Official training, everywhere, is you shoot centre mass, shoot till the threat is down.

Letting a bullet fly random in a warning shot is not an option, for obvious reasons.

Fandymo

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Depends on whether the subject is armed.

For me, armed response is only acceptable if the officer's life or health - or that of someone else - is threatened. I'm assuming that, in attempting to flee, that's not the case, so firing a warning shot. I'd be interested in knowing what the official training recommends.

That said, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the use of tasers.

A warning shot . What goes up must come down. Where should this warning shot be aimed? The amount of people who think Hollywood movies are representative of real life is scary.