Minnesota officer shoots dead another innocent black victim

Foxtrol

Student_111 wrote: »

Her nephew was familiar with guns himself... one less criminal on the streets.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9467375/Daunte-Wright-warrant-arrest-attempted-aggravated-robbery-charges.html?ico=amp-comments-viewall#article-9467375

From all reports the cop was familiar with how cover up police commuting crimes - one less dirty cop off the streets.

nullzero

Foxtrol wrote: »

From all reports the cop was familiar with how cover up police commuting crimes - one less dirty cop off the streets.

Can you throw a link up for this?

GreeBo

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Why are all the questions directed back towards the cops and not the suspect?

Because they are the ones who killed an innocent man?

GreeBo

tayto lover wrote: »

He acted the thug. Just like he was.
It was still an accident too.

Thug != Death penalty, this has been covered already.

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

Thug != Death penalty, this has been covered already.

Accidental discharge != Death penalty.

Foxtrol

Deleted User wrote: »

Accidental discharge != Death penalty.

How is that an accidental discharge? She took it out of its holster, held it for several seconds, took the safety off, and fired.

The excuse is she negligently used the wrong weapon - it didn't accidentally go off in her holster an kill the guy.

Foxtrol

Foxtrol wrote: »

How is that an accidental discharge? She took it out of its holster, held it for several seconds, took the safety off, and fired.

The excuse is she negligently used the wrong weapon - it didn't accidentally go off in her holster an kill the guy.

I love how much the definition of an accident has changed so much now. If anything could have been done to prevent it then it's not an accident apparently, meaning the the word has lost all meaning.
It's probably negligent as well. They're not exclusive.

Foxtrol

Deleted User wrote: »

I love how much the definition of an accident has changed so much now. If anything could have been done to prevent it then it's not an accident apparently, meaning the the word has lost all meaning.
It's probably negligent as well. They're not exclusive.

Many accidents involve some level of negligence, this is just to a huge level.

If a doctor who had been practicing for 26 years took out a person's heart instead of their kidney no one would be calling it an 'accident'.

Foxtrol

Foxtrol wrote: »

Many accidents involve some level of negligence, this is just to a huge level.

If a doctor who had been practicing for 26 years took out a person's heart instead of their kidney no one would be calling it an 'accident'.

Little bit different, that would take many hours with people aiding and elbow deep in the body. In this case it's a few seconds in an extreme high-pressure situation with no-one else to say "Eh, check that there will ya?".

tayto lover

GreeBo wrote: »

Thug != Death penalty, this has been covered already.

And it was an accident.
But if he had done as the officer requested he’d still be alive.
It wasn’t a “death penalty “ as such but he died as he was shot by accident after he resisted arrest..
She even said it on the video.
Not a chance she’ll be convicted of murder 1.

Foxtrol

Deleted User wrote: »

Little bit different, that would take many hours with people aiding and elbow deep in the body. In this case it's a few seconds in an extreme high-pressure situation with no-one else to say "Eh, check that there will ya?".

They are both trained to know the difference, if they weren't capable then they should never be in that job.

Also, don't bother trying to make out this this was some split second thing - we've seen the video. She was holding the gun for significant amount of time in a non direct life or death situation.

Potential-Monke

Foxtrol wrote: »

Thanks for showing why the term accident is terrible in this situation.

This is much closer

neg·li·gence

Does that apply to everything that's considered an accident? Every traffic accident is negligence? Or only specifically for this incident to get your point across? We should just retire the word accident in general, call everything negligence.

Again, it's very easy to sit here and say how this stuff should be done, when we basically live in a country with strict gun laws and feck all shootings each year, with an unarmed police force. I believe I would have a better overall idea of it, what with having a BA in Policing, 18 months intensive training and ongoing for 9 years after that, but I still wouldn't claim to know what it's like to police over there. Unless there is a serving cop in a busy US city/state on here, nobody can understand it. They can guess, but that's all.

Very easy to spend hours, days, weeks, months and even years studying the actions after the fact, whereas the cop had seconds to decide. Nobody appreciates that. At no point do I think she was right, but I also believe 100% it was an accidental discharge of the firearm instead of the tazer. It has happened before, it will happen again.

Seems the US's idea is to defund the cops, so less training... Makes sense.

10000maniacs

The Minnesota cop fan boys on this thread keep saying it was an accident.
it was no accident.
It was "anger issues" related manslaughter at the very least.
Those are the types of situations you end up with when you give idiots with anger issues guns and tasers after 16 weeks of training.

Potential-Monke

10000maniacs wrote: »

The Minnesota cop fan boys on this thread keep saying it was an accident.
it was no accident.
It was "anger issues" related manslaughter at the very least.
Those are the types of situations you end up with when you give idiots with anger issues guns and tasers after 16 weeks of training.

And you're saying that with how many years of experience of policing in America?

She sounded more scared than angry to me.

Foxtrol

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Does that apply to everything that's considered an accident? Every traffic accident is negligence? Or only specifically for this incident to get your point across? We should just retire the word accident in general, call everything negligence.

Again, it's very easy to sit here and say how this stuff should be done, when we basically live in a country with strict gun laws and feck all shootings each year, with an unarmed police force. I believe I would have a better overall idea of it, what with having a BA in Policing, 18 months intensive training and ongoing for 9 years after that, but I still wouldn't claim to know what it's like to police over there. Unless there is a serving cop in a busy US city/state on here, nobody can understand it. They can guess, but that's all.

Very easy to spend hours, days, weeks, months and even years studying the actions after the fact, whereas the cop had seconds to decide. Nobody appreciates that. At no point do I think she was right, but I also believe 100% it was an accidental discharge of the firearm instead of the tazer. It has happened before, it will happen again.

Seems the US's idea is to defund the cops, so less training... Makes sense.

The difference isn't that hard to understand. Not every traffic accident is negligence but when a person drives through a red light and kills another person it negligence - even if the person for whatever reason believed the light was green.

For you to believe it is '100% accidental discharge' is to choose ignorance or making up the meaning of words. If you don't believe me, here is what the NRA says about the difference (hardly some 'woke' organization):

Let’s be really clear about this: For our purposes, an accident is something that occurs, usually resulting in damage or injury, and is completely beyond our control. Being struck by lightning, for example, might qualify as an accident. Negligence, on the other hand, is an incident within our control that often causes damage or injury, but it could have been avoided had we been paying attention.

In fact, most cases of a firearm discharging unintentionally are properly called a “negligent discharge,” although I suspect people prefer to use the term accident because it somehow implies no one was really at fault. It also opens the door to being able to claim there was probably something wrong with the gun. In fact, this sort of thinking is no different than the anti-gun crowd blaming an object, instead of a person, for a crime.

https://www.nrafamily.org/articles/2021/2/8/how-to-avoid-negligent-discharges

10000maniacs

Potential-Monke wrote: »

And you're saying that with how many years of experience of policing in America?

My dad used to say common sense is not a gift, it's a punishment, because you have to deal with everyone who doesn't have it.

Potential-Monke

Foxtrol wrote: »

The difference isn't that hard to understand. Not every traffic accident is negligence but when a person drives through a red light and kills another person it negligence - even if the person for whatever reason believed the light was green.

For you to believe it is '100% accidental discharge' is to choose ignorance or making up the meaning of words. If you don't believe me, here is what the NRA says about the difference (hardly some 'woke' organization):



https://www.nrafamily.org/articles/2021/2/8/how-to-avoid-negligent-discharges

You're seriously using the NRA, the number 1 group against gun control, as an example of giving factual information? I didn't even read it, they have an agenda.

Here's one saying that accidental discharge is possible, from the president of the Nevada-based Institute for the Prevention of In-Custody Deaths:

""On average a recruit will draw their firearm about 5,000 times in the police academy, but maybe at most draw their Taser 10 times," said Peters, president of the Nevada-based Institute for the Prevention of In-Custody Deaths.

As a result, in stressful situations a officer's "motor memory" can kick in "and you go for your gun," Peters said."

10000maniacs wrote: »

My dad used to say common sense is not a gift, it's a punishment, because you have to deal with everyone who doesn't have it.

Very true. Just like the lad who got shot. Common sense would have meant he wouldn't have resisted. Then again, common sense would have meant he wouldn't have held a woman by the throat and with a gun pointed at her. Apparently it's lacking worldwide. Maybe it's not as common as one would hope.

Foxtrol

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Seems the US's idea is to defund the cops, so less training... Makes sense.

Taking this separately.

The cops current idea of spending their funding is turning themselves into mini armies rather than training to tell the difference between a gun and a taser so it is hardly like they are spending it well.

Here's a nice video of the NYPD's new robo dog... glad my taxes are being spent so well on this and the hundreds of millions of settlements for police officer wrongdoing

https://twitter.com/1800SPOILED/status/1381755654164074498?s=20

Potential-Monke

Foxtrol wrote: »

Taking this separately.

The cops current idea of spending their funding is turning themselves into mini armies rather than training to tell the difference between a gun and a taser so it is hardly like they are spending it well.

Here's a nice video of the NYPD's new robo dog... glad my taxes are being spent so well on this and the hundreds of millions of settlements for police officer wrongdoing

https://twitter.com/1800SPOILED/status/1381755654164074498?s=20

Seems like they need to in some states at this rate. Would people not prefer a robotic police force? Surely a robot won't accidentally discharge a gun rather than a tazer? Then again, robots also won't take **** so they're probably more likely to shoot you. People want policing to be black and white, when it's everything but.

Anyway, accident, negligence, it still wasn't intended as far as I'm concerned.

jam_mac_jam

Robot dogs. Has nobody seen Black Mirror or the Terminator. That is terrifying.

Foxtrol

Potential-Monke wrote: »

You're seriously using the NRA, the number 1 group against gun control, as an example of giving factual information? I didn't even read it, they have an agenda.

Here's one saying that accidental discharge is possible, from the president of the Nevada-based Institute for the Prevention of In-Custody Deaths:

""On average a recruit will draw their firearm about 5,000 times in the police academy, but maybe at most draw their Taser 10 times," said Peters, president of the Nevada-based Institute for the Prevention of In-Custody Deaths.

As a result, in stressful situations a officer's "motor memory" can kick in "and you go for your gun," Peters said."

Where does that quote say it is an accidental discharge? That might be a great excuse for her to explain what happened but it is still gross negligence rather than accidental.

The NRA have an agenda and it is the opposite of what mine and most people outraged by this incident, which only strengthens my case. If you didn't like the NRA, here is a Minnesota lawyer description of accidental discharge, which again doesn't agree with you:

Accidents and non-criminal negligence can happen if there is a malfunction of the firearm, magazine, or ammunition, or if there is an accident when unloading, loading, cleaning, holstering, or drawing a firearm.

https://www.cjglawoffice.com/practice-areas/minnesota-gun-crime-lawyer/reckless-discharge-firearm/

Potential-Monke

We can go back and forth with quotes from people on both sides. We've both made up our minds, so there's no point discussing it any longer. It could be either negligent or accidental, it fits the definition of both. Only she knows for sure. You continue to say negligent but you refuse to accept there is a possibility that it could accidentally happen. Nobody is perfect, humans are fallible creatures. Even the best trained in the world make mistakes. Yes, the stakes are higher when it's somebody's life on the line, but mistakes can and do happen. This utopian idea of a perfect police force is simply impossible.

We all know well that the training over there is not enough, we all know well there's psycho's with badges over there. But it's the same in every country in the world. Just so happens that 'Merica has a gun problem. I can't see any solution to it, only damage control at this point. Whether it was an accident or negligence, I strongly believe it wasn't intentional, and outright refuse to believe anyone's claims that he was shot because he was black. It's a tragic ending to a situation that should never have happened, due in part to both sides, but it did, and now there are riots and private citizens with nothing to do with it are paying the price.

I agree more training is needed for the cops, but this has to come with a community also willing to do their bit, which quite a lot seem unwilling to do, because racism.

BorneTobyWilde

Love was taken from a young life
And no one told him why
His direction has a dimlight
From one more violent crime

She innocently questioned why
Why her son had to die
She asked the men in blue
How is it that you get to choose??

Who will live and who will die
Did god say that you could decide?
You saw he didn't run
And that my son he had no gun!!

She innocently questioned why
Why her son had to die
What did these police come here for?
If they're for peace why is there war?

Did God say that they could decide
Who will live and who will die?
All my son ever did
Was try to take care of his kids

We're innocently standing by
Watching people lose their lives
It seems as if we have no voice
It's time for us to make a choice
Only god should decide
Who will live and who will die
There's nothing that can't be done
If we raise our voice as one

They've gotta hear it from me!
They've gotta hear it from you!
They've gotta hear it from us!
We can't take it
We've already had enough!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzvwgDhwp3I

GreeBo

Potential-Monke wrote: »

And you're saying that with how many years of experience of policing in America?

She sounded more scared than angry to me.

For me that's just as bad!
What was she scared of? After 26 years if she gets frightened it of her wits because someone struggles then this outcome was only a matter of time. I can't imagine her response to someone who actually had a weapon!

GreeBo

tayto lover wrote: »

And it was an accident.
But if he had done as the officer requested he’d still be alive.
It wasn’t a “death penalty “ as such but he died as he was shot by accident after he resisted arrest..
She even said it on the video.
Not a chance she’ll be convicted of murder 1.

If he'd have pulled into arbys for a burger hev would also be alive (well probably 50:50 based on my arbys experience) so I don't think your point had as much weight as you think it does.

He'd also be alive if that cop had actually used her training... None of the other cops on scene felt the need to shoot or taze him, why was that I wonder?
Surely if it was a split second, life or death situation they all would have reacted the same way?

GreeBo

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Seems the US's idea is to defund the cops, so less training... Makes sense.

Seems like you need to read up more about what defunding the police is actually about.

In any case, training has been reduced for years, in favour of "moar gunz!"

GreeBo

Potential-Monke wrote: »

You're seriously using the NRA, the number 1 group against gun control, as an example of giving factual information? I didn't even read it, they have an agenda.

Here's one saying that accidental discharge is possible, from the president of the Nevada-based Institute for the Prevention of In-Custody Deaths:

""On average a recruit will draw their firearm about 5,000 times in the police academy, but maybe at most draw their Taser 10 times," said Peters, president of the Nevada-based Institute for the Prevention of In-Custody Deaths.

As a result, in stressful situations a officer's "motor memory" can kick in "and you go for your gun," Peters said."



Very true. Just like the lad who got shot. Common sense would have meant he wouldn't have resisted. Then again, common sense would have meant he wouldn't have held a woman by the throat and with a gun pointed at her. Apparently it's lacking worldwide. Maybe it's not as common as one would hope.

If only officers were trained or experienced in dealing with common people.
Maybe that only kicks in after 27 years on the job?

GreeBo

It seems bizarre that people will accept that the cop panicked and "accidentally" shot him and so shouldn't be charged, yet the unarmed man confronted by 3 armed police isn't allowed to panic or act irrationally and if he does then whatever happens is his own fault.

Isn't there something about "to protect and to serve"?

nullzero

GreeBo wrote: »

It seems bizarre that people will accept that the cop panicked and "accidentally" shot him and so shouldn't be charged, yet the unarmed man confronted by 3 armed police isn't allowed to panic or act irrationally and if he does then whatever happens is his own fault.

Isn't there something about "to protect and to serve"?

Who said she shouldn't be charged?

The thought that an experienced officer could make such a mistake is alarming but it is clear there was no premeditation. She still should be charged with Manslaughter and that's what is happening.

Duante Wright had no reason to resist arrest and flee. It didn't make sense, and if I were in a similar situation in America I'd comply because American police are armed and human error can occur anywhere any time as happened in this tragic case.

MeMen2_MoRi_

Compare apples too apples and this is what you get.

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1382952649406959618?s=19