Minneapolis Police Officers Demanded No-Knock Warrant, Killed Innocent Gunowner Nine Seconds After Entering Residence
from the maybe-just-don't-partner-with-the-MPD-from-now-on,-St.-Paul-PD dept
The city of Minneapolis, Minnesota is temporarily ending the use of no-knock warrants following the killing of 22-year-old Amir Locke by Minneapolis police officers. The city's mayor, Jacob Frey, has placed a moratorium on these warrants until the policy can be reviewed by Professor Pete Kraska of Eastern Kentucky University and anti-police violence activist DeRay McKesson.
This comes as too little too late for Locke and his surviving family. The entire raid was caught on body cam and it shows Amir Locke picking up a gun (but not pointing it at officers) after he was awakened by police officers swarming into the residence.
Locke, who was not a target of the investigation, was sleeping in the downtown Minneapolis apartment of a relative when members of a Minneapolis police SWAT team burst in shortly before 7 a.m. Wednesday. Footage from one of the officers' body cameras showed police quietly unlocking the apartment door with a key before barging inside, yelling "Search warrant!" as Locke lay under a blanket on the couch. An officer kicked the couch, Locke stirred and was shot by officer Mark Hanneman within seconds as Locke held a firearm in his right hand.
Locke was shot once in the wrist and twice in the chest. He died thirteen minutes after the shooting. As you may have noticed from the preceding paragraph, Locke was not a suspected criminal. And for those who may argue simply being within reach of a firearm is justification for shooting, Locke's handgun was legal and he had a concealed carry permit. His justifiable reaction to people barging into an apartment unannounced is somehow considered less justifiable than the officers' decision to kill him.
In most cases, that's just the way it goes, which -- assuming the warrant dotted all i's and crossed all t's -- means the Second Amendment is subservient to other constitutional amendments, like the Fourth. Here's how Scott Greenfield explains this omnipresent friction in a nation where the right to bear arms is respected… but only up to a point:
The Second Amendment issue is clear. Locke had a legal gun and, upon being awoken in the night, grabbed it. He didn’t point it at anyone or put his finger on the trigger, but it was in his hand. A cop might explain that it would only take a fraction of a second for that to change, if he was inclined to point it at an officer, put his finger on the trigger and shoot. But he didn’t.
This conundrum has been noted and argued before, that if there is a fundamental personal right to keep and bear arms, and that’s what the Supreme Court informs us is our right, then the exercise of that constitutional right cannot automatically give right to police to execute you for it. The Reasonably Scared Cop Rule cannot co-exist with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
"Cannot co-exist." This means that, in most cases, the citizen bearing arms generally ceases to exist (along with this right) when confronted by a law enforcement officer who believes they are reasonably afraid.
There's another point to Greenfield's post that's worth reading, but one we won't discuss further in this post: the NRA's utter unwillingness to express outrage when the right to bear arms is converted to the right to remain permanently silent by police officers who have deliberately put themselves in a situation that maximizes their fears, no matter how unreasonable those fears might ultimately turn out to be.
But this is a situation that could have been avoided. A knock-and-announce warrant would have informed Locke (who was sleeping at a relative's house) that law enforcement was outside. As the owner of a legal gun and conceal/carry permit, it's highly unlikely this announcement would have resulted in Locke opening fire on officers.
It didn't have to be this way, but the Minneapolis Police Department insisted this couldn't be handled any other way.
A law enforcement source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case, said that St. Paul police filed standard applications for search warrant affidavits for three separate apartments at the Bolero Flats Apartment Homes, at 1117 S. Marquette Av., earlier this week.
But Minneapolis police demanded that, if their officers were to execute the search within its jurisdiction, St. Paul police first secure "no-knock" warrants instead. MPD would not have agreed to execute the search otherwise, according to the law enforcement source.
If it had been handled the St. Paul way, Locke might still be alive. There's no evidence here indicating deployment of a knock-and-announce warrant would have made things more dangerous for the officers. If this sort of heightened risk presented itself frequently, the St. Paul PD would respond accordingly when seeking warrants.
St. Paul police very rarely execute no-knock warrants because they are considered high-risk. St. Paul police have not served such a warrant since 2016, said department spokesman Steve Linders.
Contrast that with the Minneapolis PD, which appears to feel a majority of warrant service should be performed without niceties like knocking or announcing their presence.
A Star Tribune review of available court records found that MPD personnel have filed for, and obtained, at least 13 applications for no-knock or nighttime warrants since the start of the year — more than the 12 standard search warrants sought in that same span.
This is likely an undercount, the Star Tribune notes. Many warrants are filed under seal and are still inaccessible. But it does track with the MPD's deployment stats. According to records, the MPD carries out an average of 139 no-knock warrants a year.
This happens despite Minnesota PD policy specifically stating officers are supposed to identify themselves as police and announce their purpose (i.e., "search warrant") before entering. That rule applies even if officers have secured a no-knock warrant. If officers wish to bypass this policy that applies to no-knock warrants, they need more than a judge's permission. They also need direct permission from the Chief of Police or their designee. That's because no-knock warrants were severely restricted by police reforms passed in 2020. But it appears those reforms have done little to change the way the MPD handles its warrant business.
We'll see if the mayor's moratorium is more effective than the tepid reforms enacted following the killing of George Floyd by Officer Derek Chauvin. The undetectable change in tactics following the 2020 reforms doesn't exactly give one confidence a citywide moratorium will keep MPD officers from showing up unannounced and killing people during the ensuing confusion. It only took nine seconds for officers to end Amir Locke's life. Given what's been observed here it will apparently take several years (and several lives) before the Minneapolis PD will be willing to alter its culture and its day-to-day practices.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: amir locke, minneapolis, minnesota, no knock warrant, police, police shooting
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Criminals lying? Perish the thought
No no, gunning someone down on the spot after you broke into their house in the middle of the night and they're disoriented from being woken up is totally reasonable so long as you say 'police' and 'warrant', I mean can you imagine criminals ever doing something like that or police ever shooting an innocent person?
Clearly not, which means that if someone armed breaks into your house yelling about how they're cops they have a right to be there, and so long as you're innocent you have absolutely no reason to be worried or feel the need to defend yourself or even protest in the slightest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Criminals lying? Perish the thought
The justification is in: Amir's cousin was wanted for murder.
Every story I see has that in the first paragraph, if not the first sentence. They aren't saying "Amir sheltered the cousin" in that many words, but they certainly imply it.
So...guilt by association: clean shoot!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Criminals lying? Perish the thought
Last I checked 'wanted for murder' isn't an 'execute on the spot' offense, and 'might have offered shelter for someone wanted for murder' even less so so even that excuse doesn't hold up unless someone is predisposed to accept any justification to give cops another pass for murder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Criminals lying? Perish the thought
Locke wasn't wanted for murder. HIS COUSIN was.
According to MPD, slepping on the couch in the same house with a murder suspect is a capital offense and the cops are all Judge Dredd Jr.
Or something like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judge Dread.........
no.. Judge Dredd would uphold law too. judge Dredd would not be pleased with the current police force.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Judge Dread.........
Dredd judges corrupt cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Judge Dread.........
Plenty of the stuff Dredd sent his own brother to prison for is institutionalised within the present day US police force, under asset forfeiture, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Judge Dread.........
Another reminder - Dredd was meant to be a satire, not a role model.
Add it to the pile with 1984, Brave New World, Snowcrash, Handmaid's Tale, etc. They're warnings not instruction manuals...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For what, being too soft on crime?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For not obeying the law and being corrupt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Dredd is almost the ultimate in Lawful Neutral - although he does have occasional nudgings towards Good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Criminals lying? Perish the thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Criminals lying? Perish the thought
As much as right-wingers love to defend their gun rights, you'd think they would actually be in the streets over things like this. If just holding a gun when a "police officer" shows their face is enough for said "officer" to sign and execute your death warrant, then you really cannot say you have the right to gun ownership.
Even more so given that the courts never punish the real cops for this gross violation of human rights. (Note: Specifically the right of habeas corpus.) Why wouldn't a random person get away with it regardless of circumstance? "Oh, but he had a GUN! I was afraid for my life! Yeah, I broke into his house, but I wasn't intending to kill him. I only wanted to rob him! He's got nice stuff and if he's alive, he'll go buy more nice stuff for me to rob from him later. Plus kill someone during a robbery and you instantly get a lot more people looking for you. (With guns.) So why would I want to kill him?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Criminals lying? Perish the thought
They're also all in on "blue lives matter" and being pro police, so their heads kind of explode and they don't know what to do in a case like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Criminals lying? Perish the thought
Their general approach is to blame everyone else for threatening to take away their guns, and lay themselves over puddles to prevent the police's feet from getting wet, claiming that anyone else caught in the crossfire of a cop's bullet must have deserved it somehow. It's all operating under this belief of "well, it couldn't possibly happen to me, I'm such a model citizen."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How long will it take...?
How long will it take for social media to either dredge up the murdered innocent man's past or just make shit up about a criminal record? To show that somehow it's a good thing this cop murdered him.
Don't just stop no knock warrants, stop all "raids". Fucking KNOCK, wait for someone to answer, present the warrant, ask nicely to enter, all the while doing everything to not escalate the situation, ensure all residents are safe, dogs secured, then & only then start the search. The claim that somehow evidence will be destroyed does not sway my opinion when after a trillions of dollars blown on this drug war & drugs are not only available but cheaper than ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A number that should be 'zero' but seems to be much higher
The claim that somehow evidence will be destroyed does not sway my opinion when after a trillions of dollars blown on this drug war & drugs are not only available but cheaper than ever.
On top of the issue of spending absolutely obscene amount of money on the 'war' with little positive to show for it even if you accept that someone might flush evidence unless police are allowed to bust in unannounced... how many lives is that worth? How many people need to end up murdered in their homes thanks to trigger happy and/or murderous cops before the cost outweighs any theoretical gains?
Clearly that number has yet to be reached for supporters of no-knock warrants(assuming it's even possible to reach it for them) but it sure would be nice if those people were asked point blank how many dead members of the public they consider an acceptable trade per one case of a suspect not being able to dispose of however much they can flush after a cop knocks and announces themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A number that should be 'zero' but seems to be much higher
Not just the civilian lives lost, but law enforcement lives lost. Raids of any kind are dangerous for everyone involved. One would think the Police Unions would have their own people's self interest & be lobbying against raids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A number that should be 'zero' but seems to be much high
Uh, we really shouldn't forget the massive chaos and mayhem, and slaughter and disruption and and and in other countries resulting from that war, it's hardly restricted to the US. Another cost often missed is the ridiculous restrictions and roadblocks put up for legitimate access to a lot of meds, like triplicate prescriptions and doctors often being too afraid to prescribe pain meds, not to mention how marijuana still is unavailable for most folks who could benefit. MILLIONs have suffered, often horribly and for a long time, due to this insanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An acceptable amount, it would seem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unfortunately, that's the question and answer for a long list of things...
Traffic Lights
Highway maintenance
Speed Limits
Environmental Regulations (No dumping your toxic waste / carcinogens!)
Global Warming
School Curriculum (Yes, not being stupid is a life or death thing. We even have Awards for it. :) )
Public Health
Cybersecurity (I've worked in places where the official policy is until someone dies and we get sued over it, it won't be implemented due to cost.)
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A number that should be 'zero' but seems to be much higher
"it sure would be nice if those people were asked point blank how many dead members of the public they consider an acceptable trade"
As Joe implied above, the problem is who they consider to be "members of the public". Whenever things like this happen, there's a rush to find something in the victim's past to suggest that he somehow deserved what happened. It doesn't matter how obviously wrong the cops' actions we, as soon as it's proven that the victim was not a saint, he joins the ranks of the "enemy", and because they're fighting a "war", any losses on the side of the "enemy" are acceptable to win the "war".
That's not how any of this does or should really work, of course, but it doesn't seem to matter. Similarly, it doesn't seem to matter how many similar instances happen, the same people will argue simultaneously that Americans need to be armed at all times to defend themselves against intruders, and that if cops come barging into your home in the middle of the night then you have no right to defend yourself if they don't identify themselves. Just as cops can be retroactively supported because someone dredged up some misdeed in the victim's part that the cop could not have known about when he pulled the trigger, so the victim should have psychically known that the person breaking down their door and shoving a gun in their face was a cop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A number that should be 'zero' but seems to be much high
That's a horrifying thought though I can't help but suspect that you're both far more correct than you should be. The death toll doesn't matter because it's not members of the public being killed, rather it's 'criminals'(since clearly if a cop kills someone they had it coming) and dead 'criminals' simply don't count.
As disturbing as that is on it's own it also suggests that there is and will never be a 'too many' civilian casualties for fans of no-knock warrants because any deaths have been deemed as 'justified' before the bullets ever leave the guns, and if the current behavior is seen as perfectly acceptable then there's no need or reason to change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A number that should be 'zero' but seems to be much
"The death toll doesn't matter because it's not members of the public being killed, rather it's 'criminals'(since clearly if a cop kills someone they had it coming) and dead 'criminals' simply don't count."
You see it constantly. Every time there's a clearly unjustified murder by cops, people start digging and claim that because they came foul of the law before or simply acted like a "thug", they deserved what they got. Meanwhile if someone they agree with gets killed literally trying to storm the capitol building in order to overthrow democracy, they're an innocent snowflake who was killed because she was white and everyone nearby was just a tourist.
As for the second paragraph - yeah, sadly. It's proof of how they are justified in doing what they did because there was a real threat. Never mind that the threat presented itself as a direct result of the no knock in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A number that should be 'zero' but seems to be much
Yes. This is how othering works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How long will it take...?
Make him a suspect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How long will it take...?
According to the underlying news article in the Star-Tribune, the initial police press release did that. The police press release was not truthful, but frequently truth is still getting its shoes on while a lie is halfway across the county.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't know how much the NRA is a thing anymore, but I can't help but wonder why police unions, who constantly point out how police put their lives on the line every day, don't seem to have any influence over tactical procedures. They holler about ensuring cops are properly equipped, and nobody has a problem with spending tax dollars to get bullet proof vests, helmets, shields, new cop cars. Yet cops keep hopping out of their cars, busting in doors, rushing armed suspects, instead of using their car (or one of those tank or armored vehicles they got from the military) to provide protection while they deescalate, or direct a suspect to exit the premises and discard weapons. Cut the water supply before announcing your presence, reduce the ability to flush evidence. If you're conducting a raid, the alleged criminal should have more drugs than what 2 flushes left in the tank could dispose of.
But police unions don't actually care about officer safety...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most of what you said is fine, but cutting the water supply of someone who is merely suspected of a cringe might violate due process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you have a warrant, and are going to enter, the temporary suspension of water or other utilities is hardly a concern. Even if someone in the dwelling needs, e.g., electricity for oxygen or ventilation, a brief loss is better than being permanently ventilated by kinetic lead.
Of couse, they could de-escalate the unnecessary Extreme Warrant Service about 90% for starters.
(Note: If that wasn't a typo, then no, you shouldn't cut off someone's water supply merely for being suspected of cringe.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"cutting the water supply of someone who is merely suspected of a cringe might violate due process"
Compared to breaking down their door in the middle of the night with guns blazing if someone so much as looks like they might try to defend themselves before they can establish who they are?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
One of the main excuses cops make for these raids is the risk of suspects destroying evidence by flushing it. I would prefer to just decriminalize and legalize drugs, but I don't want things like micro SD cards, thumb drives with evidence of a crime of violence or theft being so easily lost. As I mentioned, cutting the water doesn't eliminate the water in the toilet tank, you can flush and the tank will fill a number of times, all depending on how much water is still sitting in pipes. The water won't even immediately cut off on someone who happened to be showering, the pressure would weaken as the pipes drained. I know this from making repairs around my home. Water can be turned right back on and wouldn't impose anything more than a temporary inconvenience that hundreds of degrees less in magnitude compared to broken doors and windows, flashbang grenades thrown recklessly, blowing away the family dog, armed people running screaming conflicting orders at everyone, including children, physically restraining everyone and dragging them outdoors regardless of how they are dressed for the neighborhood to see, and executing a warrant on an entire household, who is never given a chance to review it.
Cops should be taking up defensive positions, where they significantly reduce the risk to themselves and are far less likely to need to make one of these split section decisions. So many of these no-knock raids are so much more dangerous to the cops conducting them and the unions should be speaking up against them. And cases like Tamir Rice, Alton Sterling, countless others, cops run right up on somebody they know is armed and give them zero chance to voluntarily cooperate. Of course this is no guarantee that they won't shoot someone, like when the cops shot the the counselor/orderlie/social worker who was trying to convince a patient who wondered off from his care center and was playing with a shiny toy truck while sitting in the middle of the street.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure, the NRA is still very much a thing.
Part of the problem is that no one involved engages in critical and evidence-based thinking. Not even when it comes to optimally protecting their own lives. So much of this horrendous behavior is belief-based. Only, and badly, belief-based.
This affects also their ability to do things like, ehhhh, actually solve crimes, as a random, off-the-cuff example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A properly trained fire arms officer had reason to point a gun, which would give them the advantage should the suspect holding a gun start to aim it at them. Also, a properly trained firearms officer would not panic at the sight of a fire arm. U.S. swat teams are not properly trained fire arms officer, possibly because training takes time and money, and access to suitable facilities for tactical training.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't think that the issue is a lack of funding, facilities, time for professional development. Hell, cops in my state apparently siphoned off enough money from forfeitures and sales of equipment they acquired from the military and questionable discretionary budget spending to set up their very own private shooting range- and this is a tiny city police department of beach town that is only busy less than half the year.
Cops get warrior and "murder" training courses, some even attend a mock zombie apocalypse training conference on tax dollars.
The problem is that too many act with utter impunity, and because they never face any accountability, they see no need to change. In fact, they continue to get rewarded for an ever decreasing rate of crime solving, while enjoying access to evolving tech and science and overall lower crime rates. They piss away money in secret on unproven tech like Spotshotter, or stingrays that they aren't authorized to have, while tax payers shell out even more for their brutality. Occasionally a consent decree or brave city council make new rules and fund programs that teach de-escalation, how to handle mental health crisis, or how to tell if someone has overdosed, but they worn their way out of training or throw a tantrum until there is no enforcement of taking the new training .
They simply don't want to learn how to do their job with less violence because they have no intentions of being less violent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why? Just...why?
Anyone else here remember back in what I like to call "the day", America were the good guys? I'm old enough to remember when the USSR was the national standard of everything that America wasn't. Now, I'm having a hard time remembering any of the hallmarks of an evil government the America now just seems to accept as normal and, although occasionally unpleasant, fully justified. In school, from elementary on to high school, we were routinely taught that they were evil, and we were the good guys. We were taught that liberty and freedom were the key ideals upon which the American way of life was based. Were were taught that the USSR were the incontrovertible bad guys because, among other reasons, in the USSR:
The list goes on...
Every once in a while, it again occurs to me that, despite how many times my young self thought "gee whiz, I would never live in a country where they do that to people", I do, in fact, live in a country with a government that does all of the things that their own public schools taught me were the undeniable abominations that made America's enemies the legit, for realz, bad guys, and it just depresses the fuck out of me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why? Just...why?
It's actually not at all a new thing. Law enforcement in the U.S. has pretty much always been busting heads & killing innocent people since it's inception. While we were being taught differently as kids, cops were doing all that & more. Maybe the fact that now days almost every carries a video recorder with them is finally shining a light on all this.
A great podcast on the history of policing from Throughline: https://www.npr.org/2021/04/07/985039407/policing-in-america
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why? Just...why?
The sad thing is this country was doing it all along. Just not at quite at the same scale, along with the lack of freedoms of expression and movement, and the addition of bread lines and not being able to start your own used car business or multimillion dollar environmental disaster. The things we said we didn't do also tended to be visited less apon People Who Matter™.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hear my door breach in the middle of the right
I'm on my feet and opening fire at head level at anything/one coming into my room. I live alone, I am a criminal, so if you're breaching my door in the middle of the night, you ARE a criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I hear my door breach in the middle of the right
Just make sure you never give a significant other a key to your place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I hear my door breach in the middle of the right
Hashtag I am very badass
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I hear my door breach in the middle of the right
"I live alone, I am a criminal, so if you're breaching my door in the middle of the night, you ARE a criminal"
Then, the fact that you tried tried defending yourself will be used as evidence that being a cop is dangerous and they need to be armed more, before your body is cold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I hear my door breach in the middle of the right
Spoken like someone never taught how to use a gun, let alone for self defense.
Center mass, always. You aren't taking a sniper precision shot that you can carefully aim and account for variabilities. You aren't in a movie where shit takes place in slow motion.
And don't count on a couple of good shots ensuring you survive, cuz the cops still got you out manned and out gunned.
I have nothing against private gun ownership, quite the opposite. But I think too many people have a misplaced sense of confidence in their ability to protect themselves with their gun, and can put themselves in more danger. Be smart, be responsible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You think there is a constitutional conundrum?
It's not with the Second Amendment. It's with the preamble:
As soon as you declare Rights, you are declaring your intent to protect the weak against the powerful. And there is a system of laws and courts where the weak (in the U.S., you have to add the qualifier "if they can afford it") can plead their case.
So it is fundamentally evil for law enforcement of all kind to actively create situations where reflexes and self-defense come into play since those completely bypass all checks for lawfulness and instead replace them with split-second gut decisions based on prejudice and personal leanings.
A police officer who kills as a consequence of actions they have taken has failed their job, replacing law enforcement with the law of the jungle in which they are better schooled to survive than their victims.
The problem is not the Second Amendment. The problem is not that officers are carrying guns. The problems is that officers think killing people is part of their job, and that there isn't a problem with creating situations where killing people may be what it takes for them to feel safe, and that when they think they need to kill to feel safe, that's perfectly fine.
Split-second decisions are not well-weighed. They are not accounting for inherent prejudices. They are not leaving way to appeal. They are outside of the law.
A garbage collector does not get the luxury of gunning down cars where they suspect the driver of not having seen them, in order to lower the danger of their job (and I think that in the U.S. the likelihood for garbage collectors to die on the job is higher than for police officers). And they don't get to plan their actions in a manner where gunning down people may be the safest course for them.
You'd imagine that if "law enforcement" is your job description, throwing the law out the window should be the last thing you are entitled to. And yet it's the first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You think there is a constitutional conundrum?
Your educated guess about the relative hazards to garbage collectors is correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Innocence" is not the issue
When judging the behavior of the Minneapolis police force in this incident, it's irrelevant to bring up the subject of whether the victim's gun was properly licensed. You can't expect the police to determine whether or not the gun was duly licensed before deciding whether or not to shoot. Or whether the person holding the gun is "innocent" enough not to shoot.
And even if the gun wasn't legal, how could this possibly excuse any potential police misconduct in this shooting? No, the licensing issue, and the second amendment issue, are red herrings in this specific case.
Actually, they're red herrings in general, unless society is willing to conclude that it's OK for police to use certain tactics and deadly force upon people with unlicensed firearms, but that they have to be less trigger-happy against people with properly-licensed guns.
The truly relevant issues are regarding no-knock warrants: their existence, their justification, the methods employed during raids, and when it's acceptable for police to shoot someone.
On another subject: perhaps the reason the NRA isn't up in arms (see what I did there?) about this incident is that it's an example of a situation that they prefer to ignore: someone is dead expressly because he bought a gun to protect himself. He would have been safer without one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something tells me that’s not qwhite the reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think the NRA is perfectly fine with this outcome: both parties wielded weapons, and the more routinely wielded weapon (according to sociopathic metrics) carried the day.
The NRA is all-in for people not needing depending on the law for their protection, and the officers in question clearly didn't.
Have you ever heard the NRA proclaim that it thinks black citizens should carry guns to protect themselves against lynchings?
That's not the kind of thing they think a well-regulated militia should be engaged with. When there is a lynching going on, they know which side's Second Amendment they are going to prop up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Innocence" is not the issue
They are relevant because their existence means police cannot (or at least should not) assume that anyone with a gun is a criminal or someone with ill intent. If private ownership of guns were categorically illegal, it would be reasonable to at least be on high alert upon discovering that someone has a gun. As it is, it should be considered routine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Innocence" is not the issue
It is. You have to learn to consider potential gun ownership as a feature, not a bug of the system. The motivation to apply for no-knock warrants is not to avoid dangerous situations but to induce them since a dangerous situation initiated by the police gives them the upper hand and enables them to act in purported self-defense, killing instead of arresting people. It allows acting on preconceptions and killing on impulsive animosity.
It's an evolution of lynching, just that it's legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Innocence" is not the issue
Whatever criteria the police should use when considering deadly force should not depend on the 2nd amendment, nor licensing, unless you think that it's OK to shoot to kill someone for having a gun illegally. Otherwise, in that split-second decision, the police should not have to try to ascertain the legality of a weapon that might be pointed at them.
In this particular scenario, the legality of the weapon is moot when judging the police's actions. There was a gun, and the police had an instant to decide.
You might use the fact that the gun was owned legally to conclude that it is more of a tragedy (than if the gun had been unlicensed), as the kid was doing nothing wrong. However, this is dangerous territory. In fatal encounters, the police often use a victim's [unrelated] checkered history to somehow say, "It wasn't so bad to kill this person, because he/she has a long arrest record." But people saying that this shooting was less acceptable because the gun was registered are in essence endorsing the "he/she deserved it" strategy that the police use so cynically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Innocence" is not the issue
"There was a gun, and the police had an instant to decide."
There was a gun, because the person in question had the legal right to have one, and there's a large lobby that's been insisting for decades that the reason those rights are granted is because a person might fear that their home was being invaded.
The police had an instant to decide because they chose to invade a home that left very little time for the resident to determine if they were cops or criminals. Then he was killed in less than 10 seconds, without time for either party to determine what was going to happen.
The fault is still with the cops. It's bad that it's expected that a cop can be shot in moments while carrying out their job, but it's also bad that they choose to do that job in a way that leaves no time for a person to determine if the person entering their home unannounced is to be obeyed or opposed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Innocence" is not the issue
I agree with everything you wrote here.
If you want to talk "big picture," then yes, discussing the 2nd amendment and legal gun ownership is perfectly valid when debating no-knock warrants in general. But that's not what this article, nor the media are doing. For example, the word "innocent" appears in the title of this article. Why?
They are making an issue out of the fact that the gun was legally possessed, which simply isn't relevant if you're trying to determine whether the police acted appropriately in this particular incident.
Do you think that people who view this as a "bad shoot" would change their mind and think it was a "good shoot" if the victim had possessed the gun illegally? If not, then the legality wasn't relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Innocence" is not the issue
"For example, the word "innocent" appears in the title of this article. Why?"
Unless I'm mistaken, the US still has the concept of "innocent before proven guilty". It's debatable whether that's true in practice, but before they've been found guilty of something, let alone charged or arrested, the word should still apply.
Unless other evidence comes out, the victim was not charged, arrested or convicted and had no chance to access due process before he was shot. Therefore, innocent.
"Do you think that people who view this as a "bad shoot" would change their mind and think it was a "good shoot" if the victim had possessed the gun illegally?"
No, I think that the people who defend this sort of action would immediately jump on the fact that the weapon wasn't legal as justification, and the fact that it was legal removes one of the immediate defences that people in favour of this sort of thing typically resort to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Innocence" is not the issue
We understand, but the other points aren't "clouding the issue" or "irrelevant". They are addressed because 1) cops and their apologists constantly bring them up and, 2) it throws a brick into their constant invention of "well they were dangerous and guilty of something anyway" narratives. They even do this shit in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Innocence" is not the issue
Well, if that's the reason, then it's a terrible reason, since using this tactic implicitly serves to validate what the cops are doing when they dredge up, say, George Floyd's past criminal history. It's in essence endorsing the notion that a person's background, unknown to the cops, somehow excuses a cop's misbehavior (if the person has a history), or implicates the cop (if the person has no history).
Let's not stoop to their level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The legality of the gun is ultimately irrelevant in the bigger picture. Amir Locke was subjected to an invasion of his home by armed intruders who didn’t identify themselves as police. If he had been able to to defend himself with a weapon—including an illegally obtained handgun—he would’ve been well within his rights to do so.
This was a “bad shoot” because the cops put themselves in the position to make it one. They could’ve chosen another way to apprehend Amir Locke—one that didn’t involve lethal violence or an unannounced home invasion. That they chose a way in which they knowingly put themselves into a dangerous situation is on them, not Amir Locke. He didn’t commit any crime worth losing his life over, not even in the last ten seconds of his life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Innocence" is not the issue
I would say because it would be a different situation if it were someone in the middle of a shooting rampage, or pointing or firing his weapon at police. That person would (or at least might) not be innocent. Locke was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Innocence" is not the issue
Innocence and legality of the gun only matter for the sake of getting the public engaged to fight back. It plays to issues on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, we expect more of victims to deem them worthy of caring about and fighting for than we do the the people we pay to train, equip, and do the damn job law enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Innocence" is not the issue
A nit-pick, but in Minnesota firearms are not licensed. Assuming you're not a member of a prohibited class (felon, etc.), they're legal to own and possess. You do need a permit to carry a handgun around in public, though the present case was obviously not "in public".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Innocence" is not the issue
Pointing out that the gun was legally owned, held by the qualified legal owner (news mentions that he had a concealed carry permit, not that it was necessary) is to keep the victim in a sympathetic light.
The first thing the cops always do when they kill someone is smear the victim, and in fact they initially said that Amir was a suspect in the homicide they were investigating. Then made pathetic excuses for reporting wrong, something about not having all the details, hectic time, you know, bullshit.
The news picked up and amplified Breonna Taylor's story, and people actually fought for her boyfriend Walker's freedom because she was a model citizen and he legally owned his gun. Where as another black man with an extensive criminal background that included violence and was not permitted to have a gun, fired at police during a no knock, his girlfriend was killed by the hail of bullets from police, and he had to go to trial for her murder. I don't know her name and I can't remember his, but he was eventually acquitted for her murder, just a few months ago. ( He was the 3rd or 4th of his namesake and I think it was in Florida but I could be wrong) And I'm actively paying attention to these cases.
Not only do we expect ordinary people to conduct themselves much more calmly and rationally when confronted by police than the police themselves, but when they are killed by cops, we devalue their human worth (yet any other cause of death and you are a monster if you point out something bad the deceased had done)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Innocence" is not the issue
I don't expect cops to know whether or not a gun is properly licensed in mid-raid. I do expect them -- and the NRA -- to stop pretending the 2nd Amendment is just for white guys doing open carry bullshit in Subway restaurants and WalMarts. But you are correct: the biggest problem here is the no-knock warrant.
Going beyond all of that, though, there's the problem with the rights we've been told are guaranteed. They aren't. And, in cases like this, it's most often those violating at least one right (if not multiple rights) that get the benefit of the doubt. I imagine this will ultimately be ruled a cool and good shoot when all is said and done.
If Americans are upset with the extreme amount of friction generated by law enforcement's interactions with the Second Amendment, they need to drastically alter either of those elements. Or both. And, so far, the public -- and those representing them -- have refused to make any drastic alterations to either element.
It seems like it would be an easy choice to make. Drastic restrictions on gun ownership shifts power from the people to the government. Drastic reform of law enforcement (by increasing accountability and transparency) would shift more power to the people. And, given the dynamics of the power shifts, it's easy to see why certain gun owners are cop cannon fodder... and why cops aiming cannon at fodder can't be bothered to stop putting themselves in (mostly imaginary) danger to give themselves a reason to start blasting the moment they enter the most Constitutionally-sacrosanct of areas: a person's home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Innocence" is not the issue
Yeah, it was a real Mexican non-union-equivalent standoff. Cops got the jump and then got scared after the legal gun owner got scared and then the cops started blasting because... well, that's all on the MPD's demand that all officers involved be placed in the most potential danger when executing the warrant.
It's not a red herring. It's something that needs to be considered as long as cops insist on using no-knock warrants. They're related. They're not mutally exclusive elements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TheJudge is responsible !
Judge who issued this No-Knock warrant somehow gets a total exemption from ANY responsibility for this murder. Why?
Our judicial system is supposed to be the final shield and sanity check against such extreme police behavior.
This judge totally failed his critical duty to protect citizen lives and rights -- he just rubber stamped a "routine" warrant application.
This judge was just part of a largely dysfunctional and corrupt criminal just system.
Ignoring the judge and dragging the NRA into the analysis of this police incident indicates a clueless frame of reference.
What is the legal Purpose of a Judicial Search Warrant !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's unclear why anyone seriously believes that there should ever be no-knock warrants. Sometimes when challenged, an advocate will say that they're used for things like hostage situations...
Which, as far as I can tell, are covered completely by exigent circumstances policy. Even to the point that any evidence gathered with such a warrantless entry is admissible in court (though one would hope that this isn't the priority).
No-knock warrants are basically just a permission slip to murder people. Even more so when performed during nighttime hours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, you wouldn't want to have the police commit murders without permission, would you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The value of "evidence"
When officers kick in a door and storm in with guns drawn, with or without the 2 second delay of knocking, those officers all make sure their guns are loaded, and the safety is off. They are storming the place, perhaps not with the intent, but certainly fully prepared to kill people, with no regard to the guilt, innocence, age, or even deafness or ability to understand any of the commands given in English. Once they cross the threshold, they know they will kill anyone who doesn't immediately recognize them, drop whatever they are holding, and fully comply.
Why? Is this terrorist cell that has a detonator to a massive explosive device? Is this a maniac with 20 hostages? Is this somebody holding a match to a powder keg? No. More often than not, it is just somebody that somebody else (often some other arrestee that thinks giving a name or two would buy some freedom) said "he has drugs". Sometimes it's just somebody that police already have in custody, sometimes it just a deaf guy that has spent the last couple of years living in an apartment that the target of the warrant once wrote down as an address. Sometimes, the recipient of a police no knock flash bang grenade is an infant sleeping in a crib (yes, that did happen)
When police feel fully justified in storming a home while armed to the teeth with loaded guns and body armor, and all safety switches off, when they are absolutely fully aware of the possibility that someone will die, with little to no actual investigative work, or even any effort to find out who might be in the place, all because "they might flush the evidence", does not merely suggest that there might be something fundamentally wrong with policing in this country, but screams it in the faces of anyone who pays attention to anything.
What "evidence" could possibly be so much more valuable and important than any of the lives of those who might happen to be near its alleged location? What possible crime do you think is so fucking dangerous and such an immediate and severe threat that demands this level of risk to everyone in the vicinity that could be completely washed away with one flushing of 1.6 gallons of water. I've had shits that can't be flushed with one shot, how the fuck is somebody going to be able to flush evidence of any crime so fucking serious that a normal, sane person would agree requires this amount of risk to life and limb??????
Here's a hint, fucko, if you think that storming the home of someone that couldn't be bothered to know anything about is such a fucking hazard, perhaps you might take a breather before adding more guns and ammo to the equation and consider for a moment that the mission of the police is to protect the lives of people you are preparing to kill, not the evidence of things they might have done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The value of "evidence" (correction)
Hi, Rich, Didn't you mean:
"Here's a hint, fucko, if you think that storming the home of someone that YOU couldn't be bothered to know anything about is such a fucking hazard, perhaps you might take a breather before adding more guns and ammo to the equation and consider for a moment that the mission of the police is to protect the lives of people you are preparing to kill, not the evidence of things they might have done."
Thanks,
-Rich
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The value of "evidence" (correction) Thanks...
Rich,
Thanks for the correction, you handsome devil, you!
-Rich
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why No-Knock?
It should be obvious that there is no justification for no-knock.
The only excuse I could imagine was "they will destroy the evidence". IMHO if the amount of evidence is small enough to be flushed, it should not be serious enough to justify an armed invasion.
If the excuse is to surprise the target (!) and catch them off guard, then... WTF? This incident is just one of a huge number of examples where this is actually counter-productive. Busting in during the middle of the night where the neighbourhood or the house itself is wary enough to have defense measures just exacerbates the risk of a worse encounter. (In the example where Breonna Taylor was killed, the police are just lucky they were not injured or killed by the firepower - from a legal firearm - that they provoked.)
Knocking on the door and waiting for a reasonable response may provoke a violent response - but I would assume that the onus is on the police to explain why this is the most likely outcome not that it is somewhat possible. Even then, knocking and waiting might avoid such an outcome, and bashing in the door certainly does not guarantee a safer outcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why No-Knock?
If the concern is that the person may destroy evidence or might be dangerous if you give them time to arm up in their home the solution is really easy(if a lot less 'exciting'): Don't go after them while they're home.
Unless they literally never leave the house all you need to do is wait for them to leave and swoop in to grab them then, and then if you've got enough for a warrant(or not, we are talking US police here) you can search their house at your leisure without having to worry about what they might do while you're rooting through the place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why No-Knock?
Exactly - if the person is considered sufficiently dangerous and unhinged that it is not even safe to knock on the door then it should be reasonable to devote more surveillance time and take the person down while they are outside. After all, how many such people are there, even in a big city? Plus, if they are suspected of having an arsenal of high-powered weapons, they are less likely to have these immediately at hand in a vehicle. They can be effectively surrounded, limiting their impulse to fight or flee.
And, oddly enough, you can be somewhat more sure the person you are about to apprehend is the person you seek.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why No-Knock?
The other this is that the tech necessary for blocking or sampling the output of one dwellings sanity tile into the main sewer is nowhere near the "nerd harder" end of the scale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why No-Knock?
One of the cops was shot (rightfully) in the knee by Taylor's boyfriend. They weren't even supposed to be doing a no knock, or knock and bust, that's usually handled by SWAT guys who were at a different address. That's why I don't understand how their actions were all clear aside from the bullets that went into the neighbors house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have one question:
How was Hanneman reasonably scared?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have one question:
Because he has been trained to be scared at any mention or sight of a gun not held by a cop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have one question:
Oh, I don't doubt the cop was scared. But he's probably in the wrong job, if he's going to use being scared as the reason to kill people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy Fix
all EVERYONE need do is install on all of their doors is a very simple device called "Security Lock Door Barricade" which prevents the (stupidly, & unsafely) inward-opening doors from being forced open without serious effort.
THEN, the infants running outside of their cribs with LOADED WEAPONS, will have to ACKNOWLEDGE their presence, present REASONS prior to ingress, and await admission.
This simple tool establishes that thing these children were purposefully NOT taught growing up: RESPECT of others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easy Fix
There is a reason that external doors open inwards, it is so that they can be opened even if snow leaves or mud is piled up against them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Easy Fix
even for those houses that NEVER get snow,.... riiiight.
more so to allow those armed infants easier ingress to ANY home, regardless of its location.
less safety for egress in case of emergency like, oh, how about FIRE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your refusal to accept that the idea of inward-opening external dooes isn’t related to the police is your problem. Guess who gets to fix it. (ProTip: It isn’t someone else.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doors. That should be doors, like the one I’m slamming my head against for not catching that in proofreading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Too bad, now you are responsible for any politically incorrect jokes about inward-opening John or Jane Does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Easy Fix
Here are some reasons why home doors open inward, and the reasons that business doors open outward which don't apply to homes:
https://home.howstuffworks.com/home-improvement/remodeling/question584.htm
And would you have any sort of reference indicating that is why they open inward?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Security Lock Door Barricade
This is a known tactic in the drug war by dealing houses that have been successful who install reinforced doors that can't be simply breached (and bars in windows, etc.)
SWAT teams respond with extra breaching explosives, enough to blow the door right off, and when that fails, they'll blast the bars off the windows before they flashbang and clear.
(An old war-time trick is to leave the front entrance gaping open but leading into a well-defended killzone. For some reason, enemies fixate on getting through the killzone and not breaching the perimeter some other way.)
All these tactics have given way to a much cheaper alternative: Bribing the local police and retaining a good defense lawyer. That way, the coming attack is forewarned, the contraband is reduced, and prosecutors get a minor conviction that is undone in short order, but makes press and shows he's doing something to fight the drug trade. This has been the go-to tactic since the bootleggers of prohibition.
We do still see fortress drug-houses, but those defenses aren't for the police, but for rival syndicates, as they can't be bribed, and intend to massacre everyone in the house. Black market competition is rough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police having a licence to kill (or effectively gaining one by claiming to be scared after the fact) is fundamentally incompatible with human rights, period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Minneapolis again?
Wait, didn't the Minneapolis Police Department spark a giant controversy mid 2020 about relentlessly killing an American citizen?
Weren't there bunches of BLM protests on which police routinely bombarded with anti-riot ordnance? Also riots and arson which were parallel to but often not directly related to the BLM presence?
Wasn't there a whole big nation-wide protest, even leading to the DHS sending LGMs to Portland and taking people off the streets without explanation?
Didn't Minneapolis decide with a majority vote it was going to abolish, or at least defund the Minneapolis Police Department, starting a conversation about defunding the police nationwide, and at least providing alternative response services, since the police usually just rob or kill people?
Did that whole defund the MPD thing get walked back?
Wasn't 2021 worse than 2020 when it comes to officer-involved homicide?
Aren't police forces nationwide, including Minneapolis getting even more money and free surplus military gear, that President Biden signed off on without hesitation?
(Unrelated but now law enforcement also has robot dogs with rifles being used on US soil)
So things are worse off since George Floyd?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ftw
So many issues to deal with in this one tiny incident.
first and foremost I hold castle doctrine sacred.
Enter without permission and get shot.
This man is not dead because the cops shot him. He’s dead because hesitated.
Second: cops should be using less lethal force. Look at what really was three precision shots given the circumstances. Now had those been beanbag rounds or electric darts, etc, he’d be alive.
Third: no knock never works out. 40+ years of cops on film. Cops, Police Eye, Dash, SWAT on Scene, …
Over and over. Wrong guy. Wrong house. Not there. Too early. Too late.
Forth, and finally, police absolutely should shoot first. With that right they should again be using less lethal options in doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ftw
Are you actually saying that if he had shot first, he would be alive today? You can't be saying that, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ftw
In theory… yes.
But that ignores realities of most people with firearms (especially hand guns) have no idea how to properly target and aim, let alone make a stopping shot around body shielding.
And that ignores the he point I made that the police shouldn’t be armed with lethal only weapons and shouldn’t be trained to dump a clip into a suspect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ftw
And yet you seem to also be aware of this factor: "trained to dump a clip into a suspect." Given that he was shot three times when he didn't even point his weapon at police, it boggles the mind that you think he wouldn't have been shot dead if he had only started shooting at the multiple police officers first.
That makes no difference whatsoever. I couldn't find how many officers there were but let's say four. Seems on the low side for a SWAT raid. A Navy SEAL wouldn't be able to wake up, grab his weapon, and kill four armed assailants with their semiautomatic weapons already out and ready to fire. Absolutely anyone would have been killed in that scenario, your miserable attempt at victim blaming notwithstanding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
Where did I blame the victim?
It was a rhetorical musing. He well may have still died. The number of shooting officers is unknown.
Since the link to the posted evidence is behind a paywall I don’t know how many cops were there.
But a single shot from him would have put cops scattering for cover. A long enough delay to figure out it was cops. Toss out the weapon, and surrender. Ideally, alive.
He’d be cleared by a jury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
"If only he were more skilled and had opened fire instead of hesitating (right after he woke up to screaming men storming into the room) maybe he wouldn't have been shot."
The mental gymnastics required to claim that police officers who did, in fact, shoot him multiple times would instead not have done so if he had started shooting first is quite impressive. Not convincing in the slightest, but impressive.
Only in some fantasy universe, or a country whose name doesn't end with "of America".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
Some people really do seem to get their ideas from movies. Bad ones at that, judging by his takes here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ftw
It's 2nd Amendment fan/cop fan Lostinlodos. Yes, he is in fact, saying that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ftw
I guess I gave him too much credit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ftw
You mistake fan of the law as fan of cops.
I am a fan of law abiding people.
And not a fan of those who break the law.
It doesn’t matter what you’re wearing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
How does that boot polish taste by the way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
"It just happens that I consistently defended the Jan 6th patriots up until it became so inconvenient for the narrative that even Trump threw his dedicated acolytes under the bus. But look, BLM! Antifa!"
Mate, anyone and everyone can read up on your post history. It isn't rocket science. Nor us it difficult to see that your stance against lawbreakers only happens to surface when the victim is black, poor or unfortunate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
Nowhere does the article state the race of the victim. Nor their wealth.
That you claim to know either …
I will always defend the right for peaceful protest.
And maintain that as a whole there was no organised insurrection. A handful of people may or may not have intended on more than the petty criminality of the whole. Or that the only crime committed by any majority was trespassing. A crime commonly ignores in the press if the protestors are protesting something you agree with.
I always have and always will defend the word of the law. And said nothing in support of the police or your unsubstantiated notions of my comment.
Which to someone willing to read and not fall into wild fantasy clearly stated that the man on the couch had the right to shoot, even with deadly force, the people invading his local.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
What do you think they were trying to accomplish that day?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
Recognition of their belief in flawed election processes?
A pause and recount? The law is clear on that possibility. The VP as president of the senate can send results back to the states for a recount.
I give the same response to the BLM and Capital protests. Punish those who broke the law. The rest, peaceful assembly. It’s a constitutional right.
Unlike FoxHeads I won’t pretend the capital didn’t have violence.
And unlike progressives I won’t pretend the BLM protests didn’t have violence.
Calling for, or demanding, the initiation of a process codified into law is not insurrection.
Had Pence sent the results back to the states to rectify Biden would have still won. And we wouldn’t be discussing it in every other comment today.
Because here’s the reality. The vast vast majority there were there to say ‘we don’t like the results and we don’t trust them’.
How many have been hit with and tried on, any form of insurrection. And found guilty?
Out of the total crowd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
If they had stayed outside the capitol, and waved signs and chanted, or sent letters and made phone calls with those demands, it would have been a protest. Forcibly breaking into the capitol to physically disrupt the election process (to say nothing of those who hoped to inflict bodily violence on elected officials) is an act of insurrection. It is overriding the legally codified process of the election by force. There is no law permitting this.
If that's all they wanted to do - speak their mind - there was no reason to burst into the capitol building. There would also have been no reason to bring zip ties and have caches of firearms ready to bring into play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
Doesn’t work for any opposing of the protest since they were allowed into the capital building by police.
There was more than one group. That violent mob of a dozen or so in the hallway? Entirely separate from the large and peaceful group in the main foyer.
Much how the looters and arsonists were separate from the BLM protestors.
And again, those that broke windows and climbed in and stormed through the hallways, were a tiny few. Who should be punished for their actions.
Those that were allowed in through the doors, those that held discussions with police and then announced rules. Those that left when told to do so. Are not anything more than peaceful protestors.
You have much in common with Tucker and Hannity, in your stance. You show you are incapable of separating the peaceful majority — from the tiny group of organised criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
Said the guy incapable of separating the BLM protestors from the ones who inconvenienced the poor helpless policemen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
Wth are you talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
Was that main foyer the room where people were swapping out the American flags for Confederate and Trump ones?
How about just outside the Capitol Building, where - prior to anyone entering the building, if I'm not mistaken - a frickin' gallows was set up?
Never mind that many of those who entered the building that day to protest/overthrow the democratic process were QAnoners, members of hate-filled groups who oppose the Not White (Proud Boys, Three Percenters, etc.), or simply wanted an excuse to "own da libs". All of them were MAGAts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
Addendum: I find it amusing that Lostinlodos has replied to pretty much every comment except mine, above. Almost as if he has no defense against what I said...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
So what. How’s that more a problem from those that BURNED the American flag over the past few years. Look, a flag swap. That’s vandalism, maybe theft?
[
A [fake] gallows. Outside. Public space. Free speech.
…and… Idnc
Whatever “MAGAts” means.
But yes, they were there to rally for Trump. You’d expect Trump supporters at a Trump support rally. A Trump support protest.
I didn’t respond because there’s nothing to respond to. Given the vast majority did nothing wrong at all. And of those that did, the vast majority of their numbers limited that to, oh, trespassing?
I get it. You don’t like their message. Nobody has the right to violate the law and all who do so deserve punishment. No matter who’s T-shirt you wear. No matter who’s banner you fly.
You can play up a dozen UNARMED people in a back corner breaking glass and getting shot.
Nothing that happened that day comes close to burning a federal courthouse with people in it.
Nobody went there to actually hang Mike pence. Except maybe some mental nutcase that should be on meds in a padded room.
We didn’t have fires all over the capital causing hundreds of thousands in arson costs. Or tens of millions of dollars of theft. Or attempts at willingly and knowingly burning people alive. We didn’t have targeted shootings and murders.
We had vandalism. Some petty theft. Carried out by a few criminal hoodlums in the crowd. And a pile of poo.
And a large amount of what may or may not be trespass.
And a pile of poo.
We have a few removed flags, not thousands of dollars of broken statues.
And a pile of poo.
Seriously, when you point finger at all the other violence and damage over the past few years I’ll have an ear for your complaints on a single one that ultimately doesn’t remotely measure in any legal category by comparison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
"Allowed in through the doors", twisty words from someone who defends the gullible assholes that deserves rotting in prison as an abject lesson to the rest of the idiots. Why do you think the officers "allowed" people to enter? Could it be that the officers where surrounded by mob that had already used violence against other officers, that had smashed doors and windows and screaming "Hang Mike Pence!".
There where a handful of officers of the Capitol Police who acted friendly with the mob, guess what happened to them? Resignation, disciplinary actions and dismissal. But you have to be a spectacularly stupid person who thinks that it's okay to waltz into a place that a mob just trashed as if it was some kind of sightseeing tour. Any reasonable person with one iota of reasoning skill wouldn't be near such a place.
The one who have problems with facts is you as evidenced by you repeating falsehoods and lies prominently featured by both Tucker and Hannity. And if someone is peaceful, they don't fucking enter the scene where a mob battled police officers and then stormed the Capitol. Somehow you think there is nothing wrong with using violent crimes as an excuse for normalizing other crimes that's directly dependent on the first ones. Your reasoning is in the same vein as if a brute beats someone unconscious it's okay for someone "peaceful" to come by and rifle through the victims pockets to see if there is something interesting in them.
It's easy to make excuses when you take things out of context or just plain ignore it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
Why, isn’t important in law.
The allowance, right or wrong, is allowance.
You again ignore the whole and focus solely on small pockets to paint the entirety.
I see no difference in that and the Right wing painting the whole of BLM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
How old are you? The above argument sounds is like 5 year old caught with the hand in the cookie-jar explaining that the dog said it was okay. Those officers didn't have the mandate to allow anyone in - they went against their official orders which meant that anyone on the premises that didn't have official clearance to be there was trespassing.
You have to come up with something better than that, because it's a nonsense argument without specifics.
The fact is, anyone who entered the Capitol who wasn't officially supposed to be there where at minimum trespassing, regardless of what a few reprobates of officers said and allowed. No one who was there where could have been unaware on how they gained access to the Capitol which was through an assault on the Capitol Police and forced entry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
The difference is the dog has no legal authority.
The capital police do. They are the law enforcement for the capital.
As such their direction as to where you may or may not go have the authority of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, it really doesn't. You yet again fail to consider the context and are bending over backwards to excuse inexcusable behavior Mr "I believe that all those who break the law should be punished, but not those people who I happen to associate with".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You again place me in association with people I do not know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
Hundreds didn’t enter through broken windows.
They walked through an open door with police permission to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, they did? Did you miss the videos of the officers being battered out of the way? Who the fuck thinks its okay to waltz into a place where the police have been assaulted to drive them away, into a place where windows and doors have been smashed to gain entry?
It doesn't fucking matter what inane reason or excuse they had for entering the Capitol, if you aren't supposed to be there you are fucking trespassing - especially when it's the Capitol which just had been assaulted by thousands of people who should be declared mentally unfit.
You are defending the idiots idiotic behavior with some weak sauce excuses, guess that that makes you? A fucking idiot of an apologist for inexcusable behavior.
And another thing genius, they may not have entered through broken windows but they certainly did enter through smashed doors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, you’re only partly correct.
To be trespassing you need to be trespassed.
Being there is not trespassing. Not until you are told to leave. By person or by sign.
Just a minor fyi.
Nuance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can't negotiate with the fascist movement.
Lostinlodos has demonstrated over years to argue in bad faith on this site. They are a willing participant in the transnational white power movement and will gladly subvert the marketplace of ideas.
All their arguments are in bad faith. Do continue, if you enjoy trading blows with him on this forum, but you will not change his mind, and he will not further this or any conversation, but reiterate old, long-disproven arguments in a form of online gish gallop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
Which was not what was demanded, what was demanded was that Mike Pence must overturn the result. Regardless, the 12th amendment specifies the VP's duties which consists of opening the envelopes containing the electoral votes, count them and then announce the winner. He has no mandate to change or reject votes.
Feel free to quote the relevant portion of the law that codifies this but as I said above, the 12th amendment explicitly states what the duties of the VP are. And we wouldn't be discussing this if the lying orange monkey had one itty bitty of decency and that his voters weren't gullible idiots.
Perhaps you should actually read what the law and the constitution actually says since wherever you get your information from, they are lying to you and you accept it without question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
Never mind that the government has already documented plenty of correspondence from within the Oath Keepers, including the day of Jan 6th 2021, that they were, in fact, planning violent insurrection.
Lostinlodos will carry the water of Trump boys so hard he'd herniate his back if it meant Trump feels slightly less offended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
Yes, there have been arrests. How many arrests, and how many wanted for arrest, vs the total number of attendance?
See? That’s how you separate facts from prime time talking heads on any station.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
Given the police's statistical predilection for going after minorities on lesser charges, this claim is not as useful as you're hoping. When the government keeps tabs on reporters for being in the vicinity of BLM protests, but doesn't pursue the Jan 6th QAnon folks, this smug claim of "Who got arrested more often" rings hollow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
Not sure where you got that information, but it is out of date or inaccurate.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
Much like how the defund the police movement says “defund” but most want reduced funding, and reduction, not abolishment.
3 U.S. Code § 15
That the general public is ignorant to the actual process of how it works is not the point. The methods are there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
Oh boy... You know, you would have had a point but for the simple reason that those demanding that Pence overturn the election result haven't once said "Well, what we actually mean is that he should just overturn it a little, just a teensy weensy bit. Well just go and smash our way into the Capitol and take a shit in the rotunda while you decide. And btw, all those court-cases about election fraud that was thrown out of court only proves there actually were election fraud, Trump said so."
It's always funny when people quote laws without actually reading what's in them - it makes them look fucking stupid. That law is an addendum for the 12th amendment - it doesn't expand the President of the Senate's mandate one bit. The President of the Senate* happens to be an administrative role, to make sure everything is done correctly and in order. That role doesn't have the mandate to object or overturn - it can only call for objections which are noted and later decided by the Senate and the House.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
I suggest you read it
… and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer.
… Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision;…
… and the house…
Where they debate the objections and the resolution of those objections. One thing the president of the senate has ability over is to himself, as a member of the senate, object. At least in theory.
Though he can not then participate in the debate.
The methodology for the process, though not specific, is there.
There are plenty of actual concerns to object on. Such as Governors modifying the state election process by proclamation without legislation.
That less than informed idiots chanted to overturn an election doesn’t change that there were legitimate concerns in the process, not the outcome as a whole.
Such as; if a governor can not legally change the methods for an election on their own, do you disregard the non-legally-defined votes? Or do you disregard the election and redo it within the boundaries of the existing law?
I’m not part of the voting machine camp. Not part of the stolen election and fraud camp.
I believe there were real things to look at while far-right republicans ran around screaming fraud and theft.
Where I wouldn’t disregard the election result, I would, and did, call for every governor who modified election process via the executive office be charged and tried in impeachment. That is a gross violation of powers.
And my personal thoughts are not important any way.
The question here is weather or not there is a right to peacefully protest. For those that do so peacefully, that is absolutely their right.
When a capital police officer opens the door and says, on camera, that you may stay here as long as you remain peaceful… that’s permission.
Those that broke windows elsewhere should be punished as the criminals they are.
Those, the vast majority, who did what they were told by law enforcement, were following lawful orders of the police.
You’ll find I have not defended those that broke the law anywhere. On this site or elsewhere. Nor have I demanded innocent protestors be punished.
I fully support those that broke the law on the 6th be punished.
As I fully support those that broke the law at BLM protests be punished.
But I will not condemn the whole of either for the actions of a few.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
Objections are from Representatives and Senators. The Vice President is neither.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
The Vice President, president of the senate, IS a member of the senate.
That position is not limited to certain things.
It is limited from!
There is a difference.
When a pro temp is appointed, they loose some of those options as well. (Or more accurately are supposed to set down those abilities in seat).
The ability of the president to object to parts of the process has not been tested either way. Which is why there was/is a background call on codified rules more specific in word on the role of the PotS. From both parties, following Jan 6th.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
I'll repeat what I wrote before in hopes you will read it and understand it this time. Objections are from Representatives and Senators. The Vice President is neither.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ftw
Saying the wrong statement over and over doesn’t make it true.
https://www.kget.com/news/politics/what-if-path-was-uncertain-if-pence-objected-to-bidens-win/
Broo kings and cspan both have their own breakdowns and come to the same conclusion: the PotS CAN object. What happens then is not codified anywhere.
Cornell has some postings that lean towards the senate having to debate weather or not the PotS can object.
Where thoughtco says the situation is so outside the process that it’s impossible to conclude what would happen.
Again, the Vice President is not limited by what he can do.
He is limited by what he can not do. And anything not excluded is in theory not barred.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
'If Pence had tried to overturn the election, “there really weren’t good, clear answers because there was no precedent,” said Schiff, who believes it is still an open question as to how Congress could prevent an illegal attempt to block a legitimate election in the future... One possible — and illegal — scenario was for Pence to try to unilaterally reject the electors from swing states '
That doesn't state that the VP has the power to object, but that Democrats were making plans in case Pence illegally attempted to do so. So do you have a reference that doesn't state the exact opposite of what you're claiming?
It's exactly the opposite of that. The Constitution specifies what the government (including the VP) can do. Anything not granted by that document is something they cannot do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I’ll be clear:
I don’t care what Schiff‘s opinion on the matter is. There is no legal block on the PotS doing so.
Unless congress sets a rule one way or the other it remains an open issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Once again, there need not be an explicit legal prohibition. If the law doesn't say he can do it, then he cannot do it. And the law is, at the very most, ambiguous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong, he has to follow the procedure as set out - nowhere does it say that he isn't allowed to deviate because it's implied that it's illegal to do so.
You talk about voting irregularities but you have no fucking problem suggesting actions that are legally dubious and which can unravel democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well it would go to the House, which “represent”a the states.
Nor illegal.
And I fully agree with you on 4.
NO, I generally don’t. Except when someone states there there were absolutely none.
I’m more concerned with the criminal acts of politicians in state and local governments. A concern that wouldn’t change the votes at all.
I don’t suggest Pence should have done anything different. I fully support his choice of action.
That doesn’t change the fact that he could have taken different actions. And if so I’d be arguing how he likely over stepped his role and how that should (and should regardless) be solidified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boy, you are stupid. Let's go back to your initial statement:
Does the law you refer to say anywhere that Pence as the President of the Senate have those powers? No, it doesn't - he could only call for objections, not unilaterally decide to send them back the states as you stated. Could he have lodged a protest himself? Possibly, but the legality of that move is in question.
Pence did nothing of that you wanted him to do - could that be because he actually knew all this bleating from the idiots where just noise since he was actually privy to Trump's strategy to deal with the election?
Also, having a mob trying to force the President of the Senate to do something he clearly didn't intend, what do you call that?
But you sure are carrying their water every chance you get, because your whole fucking argument is built upon their deranged fantasies. You are consistently repeating their talking points, over and over again. That makes you part of the stolen election fraud camp regardless what you declare.
These pages are littered with the excuses you come up with do defend them. "Oh, they where just peaceful protesters", "Oh, that scared to shit officer over there said it was okay", "Oh, they didn't enter through broken windows" ad nauseum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which was…what?
I didn’t support the process the Trump republicans called for.
My concern has nothing to do with the actual votes or counts. Nor who won or lost.
My only argument here is people have the right to protest. Within the boundaries of the law.
My only point on this is that the worst crime committed by the 99% was trespassing. Let’s punish the criminals and move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"The fact that I'm okay with whatever they do is coincidence, I swear."
"But I'll still insult anyone who voted for Biden because the guy who grabs women by the pussy and advocated injecting bleach as a COVID cure was the clearly superior option."
"Meanwhile lots of BLM people got arrested and I'm sure FOX said something bad about them, so that means I'm capable of thinking for myself."
"All I'm asking is for everyone to ignore everything inconvenient with the people I agree with because it's damaging to my case, is that really asking too much?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
1) is discredited by my constant anti-right-action comments.
2) has anyone actually claimed trump did that to them?
And bleach injection, never happened. Moving on:
3) by fox I assume you mean Fox News. Which I’ve made clear I don’t actually watch. I read the fox services news feed that (more than) occasionally prints what their night shows hosts say. Same way CNN prints what it’s night show people say.
I can’t listen to any of their shows for more than 10 minutes or so.
News doesn’t change my stance. Protest within the bounds of the law. Or get fined/arrested.
4)
You’ll need to define “agree with”.
I agree with the right to protest within the boundaries of the law. What you chose to protest is not my concern. Not my business. Do so peacefully and legally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ftw
Lostcause has spent a lot of effort to prove that yes, he really is that stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Omitted but Possibly Important
The public police union response:
So the cops think this is a good shoot, worthy of union support.
In Minneapolis, this should not be deemed surprising. Judging from the picture of his father, farther down in the article, the deceased was surely a person of color. That alone would explain the police union view and their ``support of the officers and their families''.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Omitted but Possibly Important
It would be more surprising if a police union didn't consider any given murder by a cop a 'good shoot' given their MO seems to be 'The Police Are Never Wrong, No Matter The Evidence' that seems to be nearly unshakable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Omitted but Possibly Important
Now now: murder requires intent.
This was manslaughter.
Charge should be voluntary manslaughter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Omitted but Possibly Important
So it does. And there are surely facts which support intent:
This would surely support a finding of intentional killing with premeditation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The right to be afraid
So, if a citizenis afraid of the cops, thats acceptable.
If a cop is afraid of a citizen, then the citizen had damn well suck it up and get shot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]