Minnesota police shoot, kill man after traffic stop incident

Minneapolis was already rioting. Will it just make them worse while the trial moves towards acquittal? I assume there will just be general violence. The weather is getting better, folks want to be out and about. And after the city burns, what will our democratic friends try to story shift us to?

 

Actually, what matters is if the sh**head was a threat to others and had a weapon.

 

Just wondering which you think I am.

I have asked. As a retired Marines, I know a lot of fellow Marines that are now cops, as well as my nephew. And 100% of them tell me that there are rules and regulations as to what level of force they are allowed to use when.

Total bullshit. You watch to many cop shows on TV, go talk to some real police officers.

People have warrants for all sorts of reasons, something as simple as forgetting to pay a speeding ticket. They can only use lethal force if there is a clear and present danger from there person.

Really, I would be happy to help you move to China or Myanmar, it seems you would be much happier there.

 

Is this you bemoaning diversity hiring now?

 

Did you shoot people in the back when you were a cop? The guy had a warrant and evidently he ran because he did not want to go to jail. Pretty common occurrence. This lack of judgement should not be enough to shoot him in the back. Use your noodle champ.

 

THE CONSEQUENCES of disobeying a police officer, in ANY situation, should not be, & legally, IS NOT, being shot & potentially killed.

 

Having a warrant is not really that huge. As I said, my daughter "forgot" to pay an underage drinking ticket she got when when she was 17. She found out about the warrant in a background check when she was 25.

 

well champ I did not shoot anyone in the back. However, I don’t see the circumstances under which this happened so I’ll stay my opinion until I do know.
But people who run from the cops will probably have other bad stuff happen to them as is the way of the f****** moron like that guy.

 

there are a variety of types of warrants. Traffic warrants can often be sorted by more than one option. However, once the warrant is confirmed the person doesn’t have a say in whether or not they get arrested.

 

True, but having one is not a good enough reason to be shot.

 

People who run from the cops today might fear being pinned on the ground and choked to death after they are handcuffed or shot to death by an imbecile who doesn’t know the difference between a glock and a taser. Maybe these people feel that running is their best shot. We definitely need to regulate the type of people we send out into the public with guns, dogs and shotguns to protect us. It seems like one of these idiotic lethal tragedies happens every week. I am all for retraining our police forces, state, local and federal. We got a bunch of loose cannons running around out there. Especially in red state paradises like Texas. You ought to know.

 

That’s right and inevitably some of them bolt. That does NOT mean you can shoot them in the back as they are running away. See what I mean?

 

You can call 'bullshit' on my assertion that the police have the right to subdue and suppress those who resist arrest all you like. Frankly, I call BULLSHIT on your rebuttal. I'll take you at your word that you are a retired Marine and everything, but, more to the point, that you do know some police officers. Then ask them, point blank, about this -- remembering that the Minneapolis police were charged with enforcing the law and acting decisively on THAT ARREST WARRANT, PERIOD! Unless the actual arrest warrant said something like, "Well, if it's convenient, and it's not too much trouble, make some kind of effort to arrest this guy". Would THAT sound like "bullshit" to you? It certainly does to me!

I said, police officers have the DUTY to subdue those who resist arrest using all means available "unless it is stipulated otherwise by individual police department protocol"... And it's not TV-drama script that says the overriding reason is to protect the public from a fleeing perp -- and what that perp might do, including taking hostages, barricading himself with those hostages, and committing more crimes.

 

Yes, until that person endangers the officer or others.

 

If you bolt and run into traffic, many people could die. I'm aware of the use of force continuum.

 

Yep, especially if a moron who doesn’t know the difference between a glock and a taser is firing live rounds into traffic trying to stop a guy who has a chickenshit warrant. See what I mean?

 

We don't know for certain WHY he got shot, do we?

 

We know that the cop said she thought it was a taser. This broad should not be running the streets with guns. Family of the victim will be rewarded with millions as a result of this dummy.

 

Which is really sad, another family of an idiot gets money. It's ok, another dips*** will fight the cops or run tomorrow and the payoffs will continue.

 

No one is saying that people are not SUPPOSED TO follow police instructions, always. Why is it some people think that, for any offense, no matter how minor, the police are justified using deadly force? Why bother to give an officer a club, pepper spray, a taser, if their gun is their automatic go-to, in every situation?

But my point is that it IS NOT, the first recourse of EVERY COP. Only those who are a danger to the very public safety they are intended to protect.

Of course, police have the right to protect themselves, & the obligation to protect the community. But does either of those mandates compel shooting someone who is fleeing from an expired tag traffic stop, with a misdemeanor warrant?

It is a pathetic state of affairs, when some people justify any use of deadly force, by any policeman, under any circumstances. This is the mentality that allows those officers who are a danger to the community to stay embedded in their departments, giving the rest of their force a bad name. It is no different than the Catholic Church's past practice of protecting priests that it knew were molesting children. That is, the only difference is that we have so many non-police members of the community-- in your case, Buri, I know you are an ex-cop; retired, I assume-- lend their own voices to this sheltering of offenders in blue. It is certainly every bit as wrong, as a person condemning any & every use of a gun, by police.

In this case, the officer says she believes she was firing her taser. If you tell me, Buri, that you consider that an adequate level of competence for someone who is licensed to use deadly force, you will only confirm how impractically unrealistic & partisan your view is, on this general issue of police violence. There is something wrong with police training in MN, if a graduated (& veteran) officer, can make this deadly mistake. And if the victim were your own son or daughter, I have a very strong suspicion you would not be so excessively forgiving & accepting of this incompetence.

 

Until police are trained not to kill people unless it is absolutely necessary.

 

I can't answer why some people cannot see a good/bad shoot for what it is.

In this case I don't know what made her feel like she needed to tazer him. I do know that the tazer is in the use of force continuum, and she would, if she could, use that before shooting him with her pistol. Just because she used the tazer doesn't mean that he may have been enough of a threat to use the pistol.

That said I am happy to call a bad cop when I see one. I know what actually goes on behind the lines, so to current LEO's I'm kind of a traitor. My view is closer to accurate than anyone I read here. Before we go off on how bad training is, let's remember you cannot train for every problem and you cannot trust bad guys to do the right thing. Mistakes will be made, and cops get killed over this kind of thing all the time. In fact the situtation is MUCH worse in that now guys are having a more dangerous set of events in front of them when some a******* city manager makes them allow people with weapons to charge them or otherwise avoid the consequences of their actions. Let's not forget these guys do a sh** job and people treat them like sh** even when they're trying to do everything perfectly.

I believe she made a mistake, I also would like to know WHY she deployed the tazer. Don't blame the training, blame the PERSON. In this case, it's the officer. It's also the idiot who ran in the first place, but these can be treated separately.

 

He was fleeing. He had a warrant.

 

LOL

 

They already are. In this case I want to know why she was using the tazer in the first place. Want some more info that you won't like?

Every female officer I worked with had no business on the street. As far as handling nasty business such as physically restraining people, handling lunatics, and other physical issues I never had a female pull her weight. Trust me, I'm going to p*** off both sides of the equation with this. In our academy the one black girl had to have a supervisor help with her shooting and lied about her passing the shotgun portion. The other girls could barley handle a weapon. Nobody talks about it, but if you have a female in your district on your shift, you listen very close to the radio because someone is going to refuse to acknowledge her authority and sh** will go wrong. A woman working midnights after my shift once got herself disarmed and cuffed to a tree.

Let the ripping of my a** begin, at least I'm being honest.