That was great. Absolutely the most entertaining live coverage of any peaceful protest I've ever seen.Originally Posted by RJ
That was great. Absolutely the most entertaining live coverage of any peaceful protest I've ever seen.
Last edited by Borderland; 04-14-2021 at 09:23 AM.
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
Because these groups and organizations don't care about the law or following it...their goal is to de-legitimize any actions by the police in enforcing it on any level...especially as regards their particular special interest groups.
The facts be damned. They will create their own.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Why shuold CNN and MSNBC promote that? Where's the entertainment dollars in that? /sarc
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
Yeah, it's gone way beyond police shooting people when resisting arrest. It's now who the police shoot when resisting arrest. Soon it will just be who the police arrest. If you happen to be one of the special interest group the police won't even bother to arrest you unless you have a federal warrant for a murder or kidnapping. Then a swat team arrests you if you choose to be arrested.
Like Ron White says. "I didn't know how many it was going to take, but I knew how many they were going to use".
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
Officer Potter was FTOing someone, probably the young man going hands on with the suspect. I haven’t heard how far along they were with the FTO process but it may have been his first rodeo. MMQBing But there are ways to chill out resistance (most of which isn’t pretty on bodycam footage) hopefully he’ll stick it out and learn.
I did have one get away from me fairly late in my career after I got cuffs on him. And the little miscreant out ran me too.
It should be no one gets shot.
Losing a life over whatever crime or suspicion of crime is horrible.
Death penalty is an option after trial, not while arresting someone.
Resisting arrest, point gun. Doesn't pull over, point gun. Walks towards officer, point gun. Suspect has a gun, point gun (of course).
Regardless of how small or big the situation is, first thing is gun comes out and news happen.
It's not officers' fault as that's what they have and that's how they are trained but ready to take a citizen's life just because "I'm the LEO, you need to obey or die"...
That needs to change.
We need a new invention that can be used to incapacitate suspects, at least the unarmed ones.
Minnesota Cop Who Shot Daunte Wright to Be Charged with Manslaughter
Which is probably the right decision.
"The victor is not victorious if the vanquished does not consider himself so."
― Ennius
Any suggestions? I'm not seeing a lot of options here that aren't prohibitively expensive. I guess the solution will become apparent after the police are defunded.
Maybe that's why permitless carry is gaining traction in a lot of states. The police can come and investigate the shooting after it happens.
I communicated to the sheriffs dept about a month ago about traffic in my neighborhood generally traveling 10-15 over the speed limit. It's created a hazard where our private road meets the county road because of a blind curve. Their response. We'll get our speed radar trailer out there as soon as we can. I was thinking more along the lines of some big fat tickets but apparently they don't do that anymore. OK, I'm up to speed now.
Last edited by Borderland; 04-14-2021 at 12:54 PM.
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
I'd argue that the push for these magic fairytale inventions that incapacitate suspects 'nicely' is the exact root cause of this whole scenario. Can't mistake your Glock for a Taser if you never had a Taser, especially one that grips/feels similarly to the Glock.
I'd also argue that losing a life over a crime is only horrible if it's a minor or nonviolent thing. Nobody needs to die over a speeding ticket, but my heart isn't exactly heavy over the death of someone capable of stealing a woman's rent money by force, and reaching into her bra to get it, *after* she let him stay the night there after a party.
Ultimately, the use of lethal means by those the state empowers to do so is what the enforcement of all law is predicated upon. From not paying your taxes to robbing banks at gunpoint, persisting in virtually any behavior that's against the law will eventually mean a bunch of people with guns will show up and take you to jail, and refusing to comply means those guns get used on you.
Unless we're willing to make the law an entirely optional course of action that has minimally annoying consequences (if any) instead of 'dudes with guns' sorts of consequences, this will not change.
In areas just like this MN situation, that attitude is already prevalent, and those communities are seeing that once the law is basically optional, a whole lot less people are following it and shit is worse for it. Strange.
Cops vs opportunistic assholes and the folks in the middle trying to mind their business and earn their livings are who pay the price. That's 1000x bigger problem overall than whether or not a violent felon resisting arrest catches a bullet from a Cop.
Maybe, maybe not, if this is the statute...
609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:
(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another; or
(2) by shooting another with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as a result of negligently believing the other to be a deer or other animal; or
(3) by setting a spring gun, pit fall, deadfall, snare, or other like dangerous weapon or device; or
(4) by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal, known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run uncontrolled off the owner's premises, or negligently failing to keep it properly confined; or
(5) by committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.
If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it shall be an affirmative defense to criminal liability under clause (4) that the victim provoked the animal to cause the victim's death.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Reply With Quote