No-Knock Warrant Results in Death of Minneapolis Man

[Goonie]

If, If, If, BUT the police were doing their job, had a legal right to be in the apartment, had announced that they were police, were dressed as police and the subject pointed a gun at them which he had NO LEGAL right to do, stick to the facts as they are instead of trying to invent new facts.

False, this was a no knock warrent, given the fact that between excercising said warrant and shooting the victim dead was just 9 seconds, he had every legal right to reach for and pointing his gun on persons unknown breaking into the be room he was in, he was given no time to respond to their identifying themselves.

 

[Nithavela]

False, this was a no knock warrent, given the fact that between excercising said warrant and shooting the victim dead was just 9 seconds, he had every legal right to reach for and pointing his gun on persons unknown breaking into the be room he was in, he was given no time to respond to their identifying themselves.

As I said, american citizen should be trained to react correctly in situations like this.

My suggestion would be equip small children with shock collars and yell "police", and every time they don't throw themselves immediately on the floor with their hands behind their back, they get a painful, but harmless electrical shock.

Do this for a while when they are young enough and you get a population that is able to help the police feel secure in their duties.

 

[gaara4158]

While that may be true in extremely rare cases, it in no way is any justification for what we are seeing with officers being killed, and I am certain that you did not intend to infer that killing police officer is justifiable. In this specific case there is no doubt that the officer defended himself from a deadly threat.

The officer was the deadly threat, and Locke was undoubtedly within his rights to defend himself.

 

[Goonie]

The officer was the deadly threat, and Locke was undoubtedly within his rights to defend himself.

In this case both are legally correct. The victim had a legal right to be holding the gun, the police were legally right(assuming the no knock warrant was legitimate, and delivered to the correct address) to defend themselves.

 

[Nithavela]

In this case both are legally correct. The victim had a legal right to be holding the gun, the police were legally right(assuming the no knock warrant was legitimate, and delivered to the correct address) to defend themselves.

When everyone following the law ends up with someone dead, the problem lies in the laws.

 

[gaara4158]

In this case both are legally correct. The victim had a legal right to be holding the gun, the police were legally right(assuming the no knock warrant was legitimate, and delivered to the correct address) to defend themselves.

This just sounds like legalizing surprise gunfights as long as they’re initiated by the police. Not a good state of affairs.

 

[Tiberius Lee]

Yes, but this man was not a criminal. He was a citizen exercising his legally protected right to own a firearm and he was killed by the government. Does this not concern you as a supporter of the second amendment?

Second amendment is for white folks. Stand your ground is for white folks. If it is African American with a gun then kill first and ask question later. How often you hear story about police killing a white man with a gun?

This is what police do if it is white man with a gun

 

[timothyu]

he was given no time to respond to their identifying themselves.

But had time to make the decision to draw a weapon and act defensively instead of raise his arms?

 

[Ana the Ist]

False, this was a no knock warrent, given the fact that between excercising said warrant and shooting the victim dead was just 9 seconds, he had every legal right to reach for and pointing his gun on persons unknown breaking into the be room he was in, he was given no time to respond to their identifying themselves.

I don't think anyone is disputing that...are they?

It's the result of both the legal right to possess firearms and the legal right of the police to defend themselves...in a very specific situation.

So the question is what the upside/downside costs of the "no knock warrant" are?

I don't think anyone really knows. It could be that things go wrong, one way or another, a lot during these warrants....or it could be that incidents of this nature are extremely rare...

We can't realistically write the law so that police are obligated to wait until bullets are flying at them to fire back....that already happened in the Breonna Taylor incident, and let's be honest, most of the people upset about this are the same people who were upset that the police shot back after one of the police was shot and almost killed.

It's not exactly clear what anyone wants...

Because I think we can all agree....logically, that we want the police to arrest highly dangerous criminals who are known to be armed and likely to shoot at police.

There's no "safe way" to do that.

There's always going to be incidents where things don't go as planned and someone dies.

It makes sense that in situations that meet certain criteria, the police would want to adopt a method of executing a warrant and arrest that minimizes the risk of them being killed. That method typically involves waiting until the subject is asleep and putting them at a disadvantage. It makes sense.

If you don't want police to use this method...describe the method you want them to use. If I were a cop, and I had to choose a different method, I would do what they used to do in the past and set up an ambush along the suspect's known routine of travel. Of course the downside there is when things go wrong with that, it may involve an innocent bystander getting killed.

Let's say I agree with everything you find objectionable about this case (I don't watch the video anymore)....and you don't want police to use "no knock warrants" anymore...

Would you prefer the public ambush scenario?

Or would you prefer a more "seige" type method where buildings are surrounded by teams of police for possibly extended periods of time...resulting in not only an increased likelihood of destruction of evidence, but no certain benefit of more people surviving the encounter?

Or do you have some other idea?

 

[Ana the Ist]

This just sounds like legalizing surprise gunfights as long as they’re initiated by the police. Not a good state of affairs.

People complained about the Breonna Taylor case and as far as I know, both parties agree that the police were fired upon before firing back.

I don't know what anyone actually wants in this scenario. Police calmly walking into bullets isn't a realistic option...

If people want to end no knock warrants...that's fine. You just get to see these incidents played out a different way. Maybe they surround the building and once the subject shoots, the police riddle the building with bullets...potentially killing anyone unarmed and innocent inside. These situations in the past frequently turned into long hostage situations which are much harder to manage and allow for the destruction of evidence. Would you prefer seeing that instead? You should consider greatly increasing police funding.

What do you want to happen?

 

[timothyu]

There is an old saying about live by the sword, die by the sword. That is increasing becoming relevant, not just to the aggressive but all of the States regardless of which side claims moral superiority..

 

[Ana the Ist]

This just sounds like legalizing surprise gunfights as long as they’re initiated by the police. Not a good state of affairs.

We can announce the gunfights loudly, shut down traffic into or out of the building....

And wait on a dangerous criminal to decide if they are going to shoot at police, kill themselves, kill themselves and others, etc...

But even in those situations, I'm sure you're going to want the police to eventually end it by entering the building. We aren't going to starve them out are we? Are we going to deliver them food and just keep waiting?

 

[timothyu]

But even in those situations, I'm sure you're going to want the police to eventually end it by entering the building. We aren't going to starve them out are we? Are we going to deliver them food and just keep waiting?

Would a no knock warrant be used for a criminal arrest?

 

[Ana the Ist]

There is an old saying about live by the sword, die by the sword. That is increasing becoming relevant, not just to the aggressive but all of the States regardless of which side claims moral superiority..

I'm done pretending that these are reasonable complaints. If you agree with someone on nearly every point...and they still can't tell you what they want, identify the problem, identify a solution, or even really comprehend what preceded these circumstances (to create them) or what is the likely result of any proposal (end no knock warrants, end arrest of misdemeanor shoplifters, end bail practices for certain offenses, and on and on...)....

Then realistically, they are just complaining. They are simply expressing their feelings about who deserves more sympathy in the situation. It's not really productive to actually creating a better outcome.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Would a no knock warrant be used for a criminal arrest?

Depends. I'm sure certain criteria have to be met, to give a rather considerable degree of certainty of the crime, it's severity, and the likelihood of a significantly higher risk to the police. That criteria probably varies from state to state.

Imagine how different this would be if the police protested? They don't really have time for that...but imagine a scenario where they knock on some dangerous criminals' door, announce they are there to serve a warrant, and are immediately executed by those inside.

Now the police go marching, blocking traffic, assaulting people, shaming anyone who disagrees....

Do you think they'll be unable to identify the problem? No. They'll be able to point out that their job expects them to deal with highly dangerous criminals in uncertain conditions to a ridiculous degree of perfection.

They'll list what they want changed. It will make sense.

Let's imagine that this is a city which enacted reforms like ending no knock warrants, and removed all legal protections that keep them from being held accountable for any honest mistakes in the performance of their duty...

Whomever runs this hypothetical city denies the demands of the police. The police, of course, decide they will no longer respond to any potentially dangerous situation.

Now what? Are we going to fire the police? Things will go from bad to far worse rather quickly. Even if you could replace them, I'm not sure if I want any applicants to actually do that job. They clearly aren't good at reading situations.

If you give into the demands, well the police are then negotiating from an extreme advantage. On top of that, you'll have to tell the next group of activists complaining about police...."no".

It's far better to actually consider these policies first.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If, If, If, BUT the police were doing their job, had a legal right to be in the apartment, had announced that they were police, were dressed as police and the subject pointed a gun at them which he had NO LEGAL right to do, stick to the facts as they are instead of trying to invent new facts.

Locke did have the legal right to hold a gun and point it at an apparent intruder to where he was sleeping, according to the 2nd amendment. Locke was fully licensed to have that gun. He broke no laws. The fact that the police also had a legal right to enter the apartment as they did is evidence that our laws are contradictory and lead to such outcomes. That is why I do not blame the officers who entered the apartment. They were just doing what they were told. I blame the city itself for executing Locke. Unfortunately there is no means to put a city on trial for murder. By the way, Minneapolis is my city. I live here and I am disgusted by what my city has done.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I'm done pretending that these are reasonable complaints. If you agree with someone on nearly every point...and they still can't tell you what they want, identify the problem, identify a solution, or even really comprehend what preceded these circumstances (to create them) or what is the likely result of any proposal (end no knock warrants, end arrest of misdemeanor shoplifters, end bail practices for certain offenses, and on and on...)....

Then realistically, they are just complaining. They are simply expressing their feelings about who deserves more sympathy in the situation. It's not really productive to actually creating a better outcome.

If you want a suggestion for a better outcome, I would suggest repealing the 2nd amendment, and banning guns from inside a city. Then Amir Locke would not have had the need (or the right) to have a gun, and the police would not have had the need (or the desire) to go in shooting. In the rare case where the police think they need to go in shooting, use a robot, or use body armor that makes it unnecessary to shoot to defend their lives.

 

[variant]

How do you know?

I have no idea how many no knock warrants are issued and executed in a year...nor do I have some standard by which to measure them successful or failures....

So even if you see this as a failure, how do you know it isn't within the acceptable range of human error?

That is to say, it is one of only a few cases like it...where you would watch the camera and believe the cop was wrong....

But those few cases represent a tiny tiny fraction of the total cases, with the rest found acceptable?

I've looked...I have no idea how many of these warrants are issued and executed.

I believe it was wrong to need to break in without knocking here. There is no evidence to the contrary given what the warrants were for.

 

[variant]

There's an unknown there....right? Exactly how many people, and who, is in the apartment.

This cannot be conclusively known until the door is open and they start searching.

And how do I get from there to the justification to go in without knocking in the middle of the knight with a swat team?

 

[variant]

Yeah. You could frame it that way. Another way would be to say that sleeping next to a gun carries risks. Another would be that keeping certain people as friends or associates is also a mistake...

There's endless ways to frame it.

The no knock warrant was a death sentence for this man. If you want to try to frame it in a way that that outcome is essentially OK feel free to try.

Fallout over what? Even if I agree that the incident was a matter of murder...it appears to have been completely unplanned and unexpected. You can't magically plan for unknowns...it's impossible to have 1 million people do a job that extremely simple and none of them make a mistake...

What exactly is the problem?

It's not a mistake it is a policy.

Giving the police the power to storm into peoples houses unannounced is an acceptance that stuff like this will happen.

The poster I was replying to basically accused ME of the social fallout because people are going to be upset over such a policy.