No-Knock Warrant Results in Death of Minneapolis Man

[LeafByNiggle]

No charges pending against the officer, No FBI investigation, looks like a justified shooting from all indications.

As I said, I don't blame the officer. I blame the city. They forced the situation by issuing a no-knock warrant. They guy they were after wasn't even in Minneapolis. He was in Winona, 97 miles away.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, I want the city not to place cops in that position unnecessarily where they have to defend themselves. I know there are some situations where cops have to face bad guys with guns and that the cops have to defend themselves in such cases. But this didn't need to be such a situation.

I understand that you don't want this sort of thing to happen...

I just don't understand what you want to happen instead.

It's hard to come up with solutions when people aren't explaining the problem.

 

[variant]

I believe that the suspect was being charged with murder?

The suspect was in custody. They were after evidence.

They went in guns out and killed someone within 9 seconds.

 

[variant]

Because cops are asked to do a job that puts them in significant danger. They also encounter situations where they are expected to minimize danger to others.

Well if you have to arrest someone who has...lets imagine...a history of violent crime, a history of attacking police, is known to be armed....what exactly do you want the police to do?

Walk up, knock on the door, say "hey! suspect!...I'm a cop. I'm here to arrest you for murder, and then I'm going to search the premises for any evidence of illegal activity!"

And then what? Calmly wait outside? How does that change the scenario if he was asleep?

Should the police wait politely until he wakes up and try again?

What exactly do you want to happen? Even if he wakes up....I sincerely doubt he is going to say "I'll be out in just a minute!"?

At what point do the police enter the building? Or do you imagine some way that they don't?

The occupants of the building weren't known, and in the case we just watched they stormed in before even a knock and killed someone who had nothing to do with what they were after.

At some point there is obviously going to be justification for going in, it's simply hard to do it here.

 

[variant]

Ok...

Hazard of association.

Ah so if you're related to criminals you should fear the cops busting down your door and killing you.

We, of course don't know how associated the guy's cousin was, what he knew, ect. Just that he was asleep on the couch in a relatives house.

In this case the guy was innocent and was treated like a guilty criminal because he picked the wrong couch to sleep on.

I agree. I'm saying you seem to think it's a mistake. Others seem to think it's a mistake.

From the sound of it...the cop made a reasonable decision.

The actual shooting can be reasonable in context while putting the civilian in such a situation without cause is not.

Well it's not as if they weren't there for a reason.

If you ignore the reason and pretend cops just go around kicking in doors all willy nilly....then yes, that would be an injustice.

That's not what happened though.

The reason was to collect evidence, which they didn't even try to do peacefully.

I don't know what social fallout really means....

Like the reputation of the police?

The poster was basically saying I am not allowed to be mad about this situation because it might cause other people to riot.

 

[variant]

Right...you can have police who prioritize their own safety....or you can have young and very well paid police.

And it's not "them or everyone else".

They could always try to arrest him in public....but that puts the public at risk.

In these instances, the police are actually prioritizing the safety of everyone except the subject.

They weren't trying to arrest anyone, they were looking for evidence.

I don't know what you're suggesting here...

Cops operate outside of the court. They gather evidence, arrest suspects, and present these things to prosecutors. Prosecutors decide if a sufficient standard is met for pressing charges. If it isn't, arrested individuals are released. If it is...the case moves forward.

The cops don't presume anything. They investigate, they gather evidence, they make arrests. They can be wrong or right. They don't decide what charges move forward in which courts.

When you run into a building without first trying to do so peacefully, then execute anyone inside who is armed, they are being presumed guilty.

We have to disregard their rights to be armed, or to sleep peacefully, and simply assume they are sitting around waiting to kill people and treat them as such.

The guy was asleep and the suspect of no crime. Him being armed was not a crime, and he was given a few split seconds to wake up and comply.

This isn't a reasonable expectation.

Is it?

No rights are infinite. You can't yell fire in a crowded building.

Your right to property is just as limited.

We limit rights with justifications.

 

[variant]

Watching the video never has anything to do with the discussion...

If he shot at the police....and police shot at him and killed his dog....the same people would blame the police. As if rampant dog killing was an issue.

True, I wouldn't have blamed the guy if he had gotten a shot off. He was obviously the one in the most danger in the situation.

He would have been put on trial though if he shot or killed a police officer and would have had to claim self defense from the group that ran into his room at night.

In the case posted in this thread they actually tried the person in this situation and one of the charges was because the police shot and killed the guy's sister.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I understand that you don't want this sort of thing to happen...

I just don't understand what you want to happen instead.

It's hard to come up with solutions when people aren't explaining the problem.

What I want to happen instead is what the police eventually did. They caught the murder suspect they were after in Winona, 97 miles away. They could have done that without the raid in Minneapolis. They could have done that if the raid in Minneapolis had been during the day and by knocking politely first. The raid in Minneapolis was a solution looking for a problem. Whatever the problem was, the raid that lead to the killing of Amir Locke did not contribute to the solving of that problem, and so was simply unnecessary to be carried out the way it was.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The suspect was in custody. They were after evidence.

Ok.

They went in guns out and killed someone within 9 seconds.

Yup.

What I want to happen instead is what the police eventually did. They caught the murder suspect they were after in Winona, 97 miles away.

After they understood that the suspect wasn't at his home?

They could have done that without the raid in Minneapolis.

They could have done it without guns....now that we have all the information they didn't have.

This is why "monday morning quarterbacking" is pointless. They have to plan for what they don't know.

They could have done that if the raid in Minneapolis had been during the day and by knocking politely first.

And if he was home in Minneapolis? Is it possible that knocking would involve the likelihood of destroyed evidence or shooting at the police?

The raid in Minneapolis was a solution looking for a problem.

And the problem seems to be the possibility that the suspect was home...and the risk that posed to both the cops and evidence.

Whatever the problem was

I think it's pretty clear what the problem is.

the raid that lead to the killing of Amir Locke did not contribute to the solving of that problem, and so was simply unnecessary to be carried out the way it was.

You don't think that using a key to open the door to the suspect's home after obtaining a warrant was necessary?

How did Amir, knowing that the suspect wasn't home....know it wasn't the suspect returning home when the door was opened with a key?

Seems like sleeping with a gun and preparing to shoot anyone who enters the door...including the suspect...is a solution looking for a problem.

 

[Ana the Ist]

They weren't trying to arrest anyone, they were looking for evidence.

So they already had the suspect in custody?

When you run into a building without first trying to do so peacefully, then execute anyone inside who is armed, they are being presumed guilty.

They did so peacefully. What's not peaceful about using the key to unlock and open the door?

If I'm home...and my wife isn't....and I wake up to the sound of someone using the key to open the door....my first instinct isn't that someone has somehow picked the lock or stolen the key from my wife...

I would only assume my wife is returning home.

We have to disregard their rights to be armed, or to sleep peacefully, and simply assume they are sitting around waiting to kill people and treat them as such.

I'm glad you included that last one....

Because that's exactly what it appears Amir was doing....if we are continuing to assume he didn't see the police and reach for the gun.

The guy was asleep and the suspect of no crime.

Ok.

Him being armed was not a crime, and he was given a few split seconds to wake up and comply.

Right, in this case, the shortened time span is directly related to the proximity to the gun.

This isn't a reasonable expectation.

Seems entirely reasonable given that we can only assume that he was waiting to kill anyone coming through the door...including the suspect.

We limit rights with justifications.

Yeah.

 

[Ana the Ist]

True, I wouldn't have blamed the guy if he had gotten a shot off.

Exactly.

He was obviously the one in the most danger in the situation.

And you certainly won't hold him responsible for his own actions in any way.

He would have been put on trial though if he shot or killed a police officer and would have had to claim self defense from the group that ran into his room at night.

Yeah.

In the case posted in this thread they actually tried the person in this situation and one of the charges was because the police shot and killed the guy's sister.

The Florida case? I only read the headline to see if I was familiar with it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

After they understood that the suspect wasn't at his home?

They could have ascertained that without a no-knock warrant.

This is why "monday morning quarterbacking" is pointless. They have to plan for what they don't know.

If that is the case, they should have planned for the possibility that someone other than the suspect was sleeping there and had a gun. That is something they didn't know, and they didn't plan for it. So it appears they are very selective in what they plan for.

And if he was home in Minneapolis? Is it possible that knocking would involve the likelihood of destroyed evidence or shooting at the police?

Destroying evidence is not as important as killing people. If killing innocent people is the price to be paid for ensuring evidence doesn't get destroyed, that price is too high. The police will just have to take the chance that evidence will get destroyed and do their police work the usual way with incomplete information.

And the problem seems to be the possibility that the suspect was home...and the risk that posed to both the cops and evidence.

I've already commented on the relative value of evidence compared to human life. And the risk to the lives of the police would have been vastly reduced if they knocked first and found out what they could by questioning at the door.

You don't think that using a key to open the door to the suspect's home after obtaining a warrant was necessary?

I repeat, the no-knock warrant was unnecessary. This use of a key is a separate issue.

How did Amir, knowing that the suspect wasn't home....know it wasn't the suspect returning home when the door was opened with a key?

Perhaps the suspect is not known for bursting in yelling. Also, Amir was asleep. And he didn't even get off a shoot. Perhaps if it was the suspect, Amir would have recognized him and put down the gun. It appears Amir was shot while considering if the violent men entering the apartment were a threat or not. As long as we insist on making it legal for people like this to be armed while they sleep, the police should not shoot them until it is clear they are about to do something dangerous to others.

Seems like sleeping with a gun and preparing to shoot anyone who enters the door...including the suspect...is a solution looking for a problem.

Oh, then you must agree with me that the 2nd amendment should be repealed. Congratulations!

 

[Ana the Ist]

They could have ascertained that without a no-knock warrant.

How?

If that is the case, they should have planned for the possibility that someone other than the suspect was sleeping there and had a gun.

It seems that is what they did.

That is something they didn't know, and they didn't plan for it. So it appears they are very selective in what they plan for.

I think we can reasonably assume that they considered the possibility of another person or persons who were in the building. I'm pretty sure that is why they had their guns drawn.

Destroying evidence is not as important as killing people.

I agree.

If killing innocent people is the price to be paid for ensuring evidence doesn't get destroyed, that price is too high.

I can't really say I agree with this...

Have you considered the possibility of more murderers evading justice and continuing to murder if the police aren't willing to pursue evidence?

The police will just have to take the chance that evidence will get destroyed and do their police work the usual way with incomplete information.

And we can reasonably conclude that more murderers will evade justice...potentially taking more lives.

That's not a great trade off.

I've already commented on the relative value of evidence compared to human life. And the risk to the lives of the police would have been vastly reduced if they knocked first and found out what they could by questioning at the door.

Is there a reaction that we can reasonably expect from Amir? I can think of 3 which are likely...one of which seems most likely.

I repeat, the no-knock warrant was unnecessary. This use of a key is a separate issue.

That's an assertion that I don't see how you can make without any understanding of how this case represents the totality of no knock cases. It could be that this is the exception...and the rule is that the vast majority of the time, no knock cases are overwhelmingly beneficial and result in the safe arrests of many dangerous subjects without any loss of life in the police.

We'd have to know the numbers to decide if they are a benefit or a problem.

As for unnecessary....it's all unnecessary. We could just stop making arrests and pursuing criminals in certain communities if we decided that we would rather not have the police ever put themselves, or any members of the community, in danger.

Generally speaking, I would imagine that we don't want to do that. We would rather the police still enforce the law in those communities.

If a problem results from that....I think we should give it consideration, so we can understand the causes and find solutions.

It appears from the difference in our posts that you and I might be approaching this differently.

Would it be correct to say that you have accepted at least these two premises for some reason?

1. There is a problem that needs corrected here....even if you can't clearly explain what the problem is.
2. That problem is the result of the police's choices or actions or both.

I don't know if that's how you are approaching this...., but it appears that could be the cause of our different conclusions....is it?

I'm just trying to understand why we can agree on basically all the facts of what occurred and come to very different conclusions. I'm not trying to make assumptions about your perspective, just trying to analyze the approach you are taking based on your posts....and see if it is the reason why we end at different conclusions.

I actually can't tell if this incident represents a genuine problem. I also can't tell who is to blame based on the info....even if I could conclude that it is a problem. That's pretty far from your conclusions, despite basically 100% agreement on what happened.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The occupants of the building weren't known, and in the case we just watched they stormed in before even a knock and killed someone who had nothing to do with what they were after.

Yeah I agree with all this.

At some point there is obviously going to be justification for going in, it's simply hard to do it here.

Well I disagree on this point.

Even if all you know if no knock warrants is the Breonna Taylor case...you can get an idea of the type and amount of evidence required to obtain such a warrant from a judge.

Now, it may be that this "warrant threshold" varies wildly from district to district. That seems unlikely though, given that it has been challenged in court multiple times (the threshold that is) and the warrant allows for a temporary injunction of the subjects Constitutional rights.

If no knock warrants were a relatively new phenomenon, we might have to give it more consideration. They've been implemented in a lot of cities for decades now (I think) so it's not as if this is anything new. The courts, to my knowledge, have to have a significant amount of evidence that the likelihood of danger to the police is unusually high....and the evidence of the subject's guilt is unusually compelling....and these facts create a circumstance where the subject's rights are reasonable to suspend (specifically the right to unreasonable search and seizure).

Now, because it's an ongoing case...as it would be regardless of whether or not anyone was shot and killed....and we want the trial to be fair and impartial, we won't know what evidence the police had for the warrant until it's concluded.

Unless we already have evidence that these warrants are being issued frequently without any consistent and compelling amount of evidence....

I see no reason why we should assume the warrant wasn't justified.

 

[gaara4158]

If that were the case there would be charges pending against the officer and there would be a civil rights investigation by the FBI. I do not see either one of those things happening. Do you?

It’s Mississippi. It’s a miracle we’re even hearing about this.

 

[Pommer]

It’s Mississippi. It’s a miracle we’re even hearing about this.

Minneapolis is decidedly not Mississippi.

 

[variant]

And you certainly won't hold him responsible for his own actions in any way.

That's because he wasn't responsible, his crime was holding a gun in a place where he fell asleep on the couch and not having his first reaction to be "immediate compliance" when being awakened in the middle of the night.

The fact that the expectation is that he somehow knows what is going on better than the trained individuals who planned this is preposterous.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's because he wasn't responsible,

That a bit...patronizing, isn't it?

Surely he's responsible for his own actions.

his crime was holding a gun in a place where he fell asleep on the couch and not having his first reaction to be "immediate compliance" when being awakened in the middle of the night.

That is the risk of preparing to shoot anyone who unlocks the door and enters a residence despite not actually living there.

Wonder why he did that?

The fact that the expectation is that he somehow knows what is going on better than the trained individuals who planned this is preposterous.

That isn't the expectation. The expectation is that any individuals within are likely armed and dangerous and therefore the tactical advantage of a no knock warrant is justified.

You know...the kind of individuals who will shoot at police officers on sight.

 

[variant]

That a bit...patronizing, isn't it?

Surely he's responsible for his own actions.

Patronizing? I'm giving the guy a pass because he was woken up on a couch by a half dozen people pointing guns at him and yelling.

His actions aren't what caused this.

Or, perhaps you've never been woken up suddenly before. I wonder how many seconds it takes the average person to wake up and start processing what is going on to where it would actually be fair to expect them to surrender.

I'll bet it's more than 5 or 6 seconds.

That is the risk of preparing to shoot anyone who unlocks the door and enters a residence despite not actually living there.

Wonder why he did that?

He woke up and picked up a gun because half a dozen people came up behind him yelling.

That isn't the expectation. The expectation is that any individuals within are likely armed and dangerous and therefore the tactical advantage of a no knock warrant is justified.

You know...the kind of individuals who will shoot at police officers on sight.

No one shot at the police, he was able to pick up a gun, that's it.

And again, If he had, I still wouldn't have blamed him, there was no way to process what was going on and he would have been acting in self defense in a situation not of his making.

With regards to him this situation was caused by police practice and policy. He was murdered by the justice system.

 

[disciple Clint]

It’s Mississippi. It’s a miracle we’re even hearing about this.

Is there not phone access to the FBI in Mississippi?