Anger builds after police shoot assault suspect in Minneapolis

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What I'd like to know is how much you, personally, were inconvenienced by marchers closing down 1-94,

Not much given the shutdown was 1000 miles away from here, but last year some BLMers shut down the Downtown Connector here protesting Michael Brown's shooting so I have some experience with it.

So your single anecdote generalizes to all other cases?

You know what fallacy that is called?

 

[Derec]

The "BLMers" are demanding camera footage? Do the BLMers have a right to Freedom of Information?

Presumably there are laws/procedures governing dissemination of such information that should be followed.

By the way, they aren't suicide bombing anyone. Did you notice that?

What? You think they deserve a fucking medal for not blowing themselves up?

Your problem with the BLMers does not address your double standard here and we also saw that in the case where the black police officer was indicted of reckless shooting. You drew a conclusion against him but are not drawing any conclusions here except against the victim of the shooting.

If you mean the case in Louisiana, that's because the investigation uncovered facts not favorable to the officers. I withheld my judgment until then, just like I am doing now (about the shooting, not necessarily about the shootee).
Note also that no white people occupied the police station in that Louisiana town, and neither did they block I-49 for hours.

Wouldn't it make more sense to say let's wait and see if he did anything deserving of being shot AND let's wait and see if the police did anything unnecessary and/or reckless to be consistent?

Why don't you tell the BLMers that? They were awfully quick to start with their usual antics.
But again, nobody is disputing that he assaulted his girlfriend [how does a loser like this get a gf anyway?] and impeded the paramedics who were assisting her, nor that there was an altercation with the police. The only dispute seems to be whether he was already handcuffed when he was shot.

 

[Derec]

Not much given the shutdown was 1000 miles away from here, but last year some BLMers shut down the Downtown Connector here protesting Michael Brown's shooting so I have some experience with it.

So your single anecdote generalizes to all other cases?

You know what fallacy that is called?

What the hell are you talking about?
I know what happens when you block a major highway at 7PM in the evening. I do not need to live in the same city it happened in today to know it. I know what happens, you know what happens, Toni knows what happens. Let's not play dumb for once, ok?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Let's not play dumb for once, ok?

Okay, you start first.

What? You think they deserve a fucking medal for not blowing themselves up?

Okay, anytime you're ready, let me know.

But again, nobody is disputing that he assaulted his girlfriend and impeded the paramedics who were assisting her, nor that there was an altercation with the police. The only dispute seems to be whether he was already handcuffed when he was shot.

Silence on an issue does not mean consent to it, especially when they are demanding camera footage.

Still waiting...

 

[Derec]

Okay, you start first.

Can not commence operation. Reason: operation already in progress.

Okay, anytime you're ready, let me know.

What is your quip about BLMers not suicide bombing people supposed to mean?

Silence on an issue does not mean consent to it, especially when they are demanding camera footage.

I disagree. If there was a dispute as to these things, they would have said it, just like they are claiming he was handcuffed.
By the way, he has priors for aggravated robbery and terroristic threats. Quite a prize, this Jamar Clark, but par for the course as far as preferred #BLM martyrs go. Will fit nicely next to Michael Brown on the next banner BLMers produce.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This is America. Convicts and suspects have rights, too. Don't try to poison the issue. For the most part, most of the time, they do not deserve to be shot in the head while handcuffed. When that does happen, it's an extraordinary circumstance and affront to liberty requiring extraordinary proof of necessity.

 

[Derec]

This is America. Convicts and suspects have rights, too.

They make poor cause celebres. Also, the history of violent crime makes it more likely he was guilty of a violent crime that day and also that the shooting was justified. Not proving it conclusively of course, but probabalistically it tips the scales one way.

Don't try to poison the issue. For the most part, most of the time, they do not deserve to be shot in the head while handcuffed.

You are assuming facts not in evidence. Just like Michael Brown's hands up in surrender or VonDerrit Myer's 9mm sandwich I am very skeptical of the BLM account.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

...if police misconduct is something really important to you, good grief pick better martyrs.

1. Police misconduct, particularly when it's abusive, should concern all of us. Despite what BLM'ers say, no one is immune from police violence.

2. I do wonder why they pick the martyrs they do. Michael Brown? A friggin' grand jury couldn't indict the cop that shot him. Here's a how a grand jury works.

The defendant is not allowed to have his attorney present.
The prosecutor is allowed to present witnesses and evidence that cannot be challenged or objected to by the defendant's attorney, because the attorney isn't allowed in the room.
If the defendant wishes to consult with their attorney, they have to physically leave the room in order to do s0.
A prosecutor can tell the grand jury to infer guilt should the defendant exercise his 5th Amendment right to not self-incriminate, which is not allowed in a trial (except under certain circumstances not pertinent here).

There's a popular saying that a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich. That's because it's an investigative body that hears one side of the story. Then the jury decides if there should be a trial. In the Michael Brown case, the prosecutor couldn't present enough evidence to indict that ham sandwich. The case was a loser.

There are good, innocent people that do get gunned down by the police. There's no disputing it. But why choose such bad individuals as your poster boy? It turns people off from your cause.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Silence on an issue does not mean consent to it, especially when they are demanding camera footage.

Quick, nerdy piece of info: when a person is accused of an act that a reasonable person would deny under the given circumstance, then the silence is admissible into evidence, and from that a jury may infer that by not denying the accusation that the accused did the act.

For example: "You shot and killed Jim-Bob!"

Then you just sit there and don't say anything.

The law says that a reasonable person would deny such an accusation and to not do so is so against their penal interests that it may be construed as an admission of guilt.

YMMV with circumstances.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

They make poor cause celebres.

There's no disputing it. But why choose such bad individuals as your poster boy? It turns people off from your cause.

There are things in life that are not popularity contests. It doesn't matter if high fives are given. As stated already, convicts and suspects still have rights, even the unpopular ones. The suspect still should not be shot in the head while handcuffed.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Also, the history of violent crime makes it more likely he was guilty of a violent crime that day and also that the shooting was justified. Not proving it conclusively of course, but probabalistically it tips the scales one way.

A double standard you have refused to apply in other cases.

Don't try to poison the issue. For the most part, most of the time, they do not deserve to be shot in the head while handcuffed.

You are assuming facts not in evidence. Just like Michael Brown's hands up in surrender or VonDerrit Myer's 9mm sandwich I am very skeptical of the BLM account.

There is no reason for police not to submit all of the camera footage. Until that is done and a better answer can be obtained from footage, because there is witness testimony of wrongdoing, I'll believe it is possible.

I am not convicting the police or the victim, but you, however, seem to already know the answer.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So your single anecdote generalizes to all other cases?

You know what fallacy that is called?

What the hell are you talking about?
I know what happens when you block a major highway at 7PM in the evening. I do not need to live in the same city it happened in today to know it. I know what happens, you know what happens, Toni knows what happens. Let's not play dumb for once, ok?

Oh that's what happened. Traffic was unusually light as I was heading home on the freeway. The slowdown started at my exit ramp.

 

[Toni]

I did not jump to conclusions here. I have no idea whether the shooting is justified or not, and I am - unlike the #BLM protesters - willing to await the outcome of the investigation. However, given what the perp did before the shooting (and nobody is contradicting that so far) it's more likely than not justified.

Glad you aren't jumping to conclusions.

What I'd like to know is how much you, personally, were inconvenienced by marchers closing down 1-94,

Not much given the shutdown was 1000 miles away from here, but last year some BLMers shut down the Downtown Connector here protesting Michael Brown's shooting so I have some experience with it.

So, no idea at all.

how much anyone was inconvenienced

The idiots shut down a major interstate during evening rush hour and the shutdown lasted more than 2 hours. How much do you think everyone was inconvenienced? In addition, the thugs damaged cars and one even punched a cop.
Protesters shut down I-94 in Mpls., 51 arrested
Unfortunately they will only be charged with misdemeanors.

Why do you think 'incoveniencing' other people is worthy of chargers greater than misdemeanors? Or misdemeanors? FFS, construction inconveniences me quite frequently, forcing me to drive miles out of my way to get to my destination. Which is far, far worse than what happened there.

and why you are always in such a lather to arrest and convict people you don't know for engaging in acts you consider to be criminal

Shutting down an interstate highway is criminal.

And yet: road construction crews do it all of the time. So do traffic jams, and car accidents. I have yet to read of a single blizzard being charged with anything criminal, even when an interstate was shut down and even if lives are lost. Sometimes there is some rumblings about charging the engineers who designed a roadway or the DOT for their design. But generally speaking, interstate shut downs never prompt calls for arrests.

but which are not actually felonies in the state where they happen. I'm really curious. What problem or 'problem' would such a law solve--or 'solve?'

More serious consequences would deter people from these tactics in the future. They did this nonsense with Michael Brown (whose shooting, may I remind you, turned out to be justified) and are doing it again.

How many similar incidents have the incident on 94 inspired? Why is this such a big issue for you? It's not because you are all law and order because we all know that you have no problem breaking laws you personally disagree with.

Do you have any idea what race relations are like in Minneapolis? How they've changed since the BLM movement got started? Why the BLM has taken hold in Minneapolis?

I don't know and I don't care. Whatever they are, shutting down a major highway is not a justified tactic.

Wow. Traffic must go on! No matter what the reason not to go on.

Mostly, I am curious why it doesn't seem to bother you even a little bit when unarmed people are killed by police officers.

Unarmed !=harmless. It also doesn't mean the shooting wasn't justified. Let's wait for the result of the investigation before jumping to conclusions.

Even if they are children.

This was a grown-ass man. Are you trying to derail?

No derail. I'm just pointing out a general point of view that you seem to always have: police are always justified in shooting (insert blank, including unarmed people and children). It seems to be your default position. Prior to and post-investigation. No matter the result of the investigation.

 

[ksen]

Wow. Traffic must go on! No matter what the reason not to go on.

the trains gotta run on time

 

[Derec]

So, no idea at all.

How do you figure? Are interstate highways in Minneapolis so fundamentally different than those elsewhere?

Why do you think 'incoveniencing' other people is worthy of chargers greater than misdemeanors?

100s of people are affected when stunts like that are pulled. They were stuck on the highway for hours - that's pretty much wrongful detention. There is also a safety aspect in that emergency vehicles would have been affected too.

Or misdemeanors?

Wait, you don't even think it should be misdemeanors? Just let idiots block highways with impunity?

FFS, construction inconveniences me quite frequently, forcing me to drive miles out of my way to get to my destination. Which is far, far worse than what happened there.

Construction has a legitimate purpose. Accidents are just that, accidents. We are talking here about deliberate, organized shutdown of a major highway. And the namby-pamby response by the police last time around did not deter them from repeating this again now.

And yet: road construction crews do it all of the time.

Cutting somebody is illegal in general yet surgeons do it all the time. Context and purpose matters.

So do traffic jams, and car accidents. I have yet to read of a single blizzard being charged with anything criminal, even when an interstate was shut down and even if lives are lost.

If a blizzard causes damage that leads to a building burning down, that's one thing. So is a person accidentally burning down a building. But deliberate arson is viewed very differently. This was a deliberate, organized shutdown, not a natural disaster, not an accident, a deliberate criminal act with clear mens rea and should have had more severe consequences than misdemeanor tickets.

Sometimes there is some rumblings about charging the engineers who designed a roadway or the DOT for their design. But generally speaking, interstate shut downs never prompt calls for arrests.

Unless they are deliberate like in this case.

How many similar incidents have the incident on 94 inspired?

I know the idiots blocked another Minneapolis interstate in the wake of Michael Brown. And that incident inspired the shutdown in Atlanta.

Wow. Traffic must go on! No matter what the reason not to go on.

Interstate highways are not an appropriate protest venue. Your right to protest ends with other people's right to free movement. Protesters have no right to, in effect, detain drivers for hours.

No derail. I'm just pointing out a general point of view that you seem to always have: police are always justified in shooting (insert blank, including unarmed people and children). It seems to be your default position. Prior to and post-investigation. No matter the result of the investigation.

Not true at all. Sometimes police are not justified - example shooting of Walter Scott or shooting of that 6 year old kid. But to #BLM protesters police shootings of black people are never justified even when they have to pretend the gun the perp had was a sandwich.

 

[laughing dog]

There are good, innocent people that do get gunned down by the police. There's no disputing it. But why choose such bad individuals as your poster boy? It turns people off from your cause.

That ignores the reality that tacitly allowing the police to gun down "guilty" people increases the odds they will gun down innocent people. Just ask Tamir Rice. Oh right, he cannot answer because he is dead.

 

[Toni]

How do you figure? Are interstate highways in Minneapolis so fundamentally different than those elsewhere?

Why do you think 'incoveniencing' other people is worthy of chargers greater than misdemeanors?

100s of people are affected when stunts like that are pulled. They were stuck on the highway for hours - that's pretty much wrongful detention. There is also a safety aspect in that emergency vehicles would have been affected too.

It's no closer to 'wrongful detention' than is traffic being stopped because of a traffic accident or road construction or bad weather. You just disagree with these protesters. And have no idea whether they had any justification.

Or misdemeanors?

Wait, you don't even think it should be misdemeanors? Just let idiots block highways with impunity?

What I am saying is: no one was hurt, nothing bad happened and there have not been mass shutdowns of roadways since. Mass arrests would have escalated the situation and resulted in far greater harm for far longer a period of time.

Context is everything. You are missing context here.

FFS, construction inconveniences me quite frequently, forcing me to drive miles out of my way to get to my destination. Which is far, far worse than what happened there.

Construction has a legitimate purpose. Accidents are just that, accidents. We are talking here about deliberate, organized shutdown of a major highway. And the namby-pamby response by the police last time around did not deter them from repeating this again now.

And yet: traffic moves quite as well in the Minneapolis area as it ever did.

And yet: road construction crews do it all of the time.

Cutting somebody is illegal in general yet surgeons do it all the time. Context and purpose matters.

Yes. Context and purpose makes all the difference. YOU disagree with the context and purpose. But apparently, cooler heads and better judgment prevailed. No one was injured, everyone was safe. Instead of escalating a situation which would have caused much more harm and would have likely just inspired more such incidents, the police decided to use restraint, show respect for the issues being highlighted and the lack of violence and allow the protesters to protest and to feel they were heard. VS Mass arrests--which would NOT have speeded up traffic, btw, and would have likely resulted in much more serious incidents at the time and in the future.

So do traffic jams, and car accidents. I have yet to read of a single blizzard being charged with anything criminal, even when an interstate was shut down and even if lives are lost.

If a blizzard causes damage that leads to a building burning down, that's one thing. So is a person accidentally burning down a building. But deliberate arson is viewed very differently. This was a deliberate, organized shutdown, not a natural disaster, not an accident, a deliberate criminal act with clear mens rea and should have had more severe consequences than misdemeanor tickets.

Wow. Do you take an Uzzi when you go fishing? Swat flies with a .457?
Do you think NO action which is technically or not so technically against the law should be met with the full force of the law? Because if you do, that raises some other questions.

Sometimes there is some rumblings about charging the engineers who designed a roadway or the DOT for their design. But generally speaking, interstate shut downs never prompt calls for arrests.

Unless they are deliberate like in this case.

Construction crews shut down highways and interstates. Deliberately.

You are the only person who is calling for arrests. For something you actually know very little about and were not affected by, and which caused ZERO long term consequences. For anybody. Unlike arrests and escalation of peaceful protests would do.

How many similar incidents have the incident on 94 inspired?

I know the idiots blocked another Minneapolis interstate in the wake of Michael Brown. And that incident inspired the shutdown in Atlanta.

Since you seem to be against incidents that inspire shut downs of roadways, you should take a much firmer stance against police shooting people. Police shooting unarmed suspects is inspiring a lot of actions you don't approve of. You are objecting to the wrong thing.

Wow. Traffic must go on! No matter what the reason not to go on.

Interstate highways are not an appropriate protest venue. Your right to protest ends with other people's right to free movement. Protesters have no right to, in effect, detain drivers for hours.

No one was detained. And yes, people do have the right to protest in the United States and no, protests do not have to be convenient.

Not true at all. Sometimes police are not justified - example shooting of Walter Scott or shooting of that 6 year old kid. But to #BLM protesters police shootings of black people are never justified even when they have to pretend the gun the perp had was a sandwich.

That's something, I guess: you don't always agree that police are justified in shooting whoever they want to shoot. You realize, of course, that BLM was instrumental in getting the video of Scott's murder into the proper hands so that the police officer could be charged?

 

[Malintent]

I am of the opinion that no American has the right to act badly with no consequence. the more egregious the act, the more direct and immediate the response. Black lives do NOT matter any more than anyone else's.
Ever since the OJ case; seeing the response of black hate groups (pretty much any group of blacks large enough for normal group mentality to kick in), I am solidly of the opinion that these groups of blacks have no interest in justice or civil discourse.. just revenge for the ancient wrong doing of the slave trade.

 

[JonA]

It's not that unreasonable to suppose uncontested claims true.

When there are two opposing sides to the claim, it's best to hold out for relevant evidence. When the two sides are consistent, it's acceptable to go with it.

This is based on a pretty basic courtroom and debate standard: uncontested claims can be accepted without investigation or evidence.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It's not that unreasonable to suppose uncontested claims true.

When there are two opposing sides to the claim, it's best to hold out for relevant evidence. When the two sides are consistent, it's acceptable to go with it.

This is based on a pretty basic courtroom and debate standard: uncontested claims can be accepted without investigation or evidence.

That's what the mafia lawyers keep telling us, anyways.