Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.No charges pending against the officer, No FBI investigation, looks like a justified shooting from all indications.
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 believe that the suspect was being charged with murder?
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?
Ok...
Hazard of association.
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.
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.
I don't know what social fallout really means....
Like the reputation of the police?
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.
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.
Is it?
No rights are infinite. You can't yell fire in a crowded building.
Your right to property is just as limited.
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.
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.
The suspect was in custody. They were after evidence.
They went in guns out and killed someone within 9 seconds.
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.
They weren't trying to arrest anyone, they were looking for evidence.
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.
We limit rights with justifications.
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.
They could have ascertained that without a no-knock warrant.After they understood that the suspect wasn't at his home?
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.This is why "monday morning quarterbacking" is pointless. They have to plan for what they don't know.
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 if he was home in Minneapolis? Is it possible that knocking would involve the likelihood of destroyed evidence or shooting at the police?
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.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 repeat, the no-knock warrant was unnecessary. This use of a key is a separate issue.You don't think that using a key to open the door to the suspect's home after obtaining a warrant was necessary?
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.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?
Oh, then you must agree with me that the 2nd amendment should be repealed. Congratulations!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.
They could have ascertained that without a no-knock warrant.
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.
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.
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.
I repeat, the no-knock warrant was unnecessary. This use of a key is a separate issue.
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.
It’s Mississippi. It’s a miracle we’re even hearing about this.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?
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.
That a bit...patronizing, isn't it?
Surely he's responsible for his own actions.
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?
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.
Is there not phone access to the FBI in Mississippi?It’s Mississippi. It’s a miracle we’re even hearing about this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?