New blockade in Minneapolis

[TomC]

I am always amazed at the number of mental health experts on this forum who can produce an accurate diagnosis in these cases from news reports.


The police of Edina and Richfield have earned (either justly or unjustly) distrust from the communities of color in the area which may help explain the reaction.

I -494 in Richfield is a mess anyway, with a big chunk of that freeway closed to traffic over the weekend. So I doubt there was much disturbance to travellers on Sunday night.

But nice to see the classy title to this tragedy in the OP.

The police of Edina and Richfield are on payroll specifically to keep "the poors" out. You know how much of a kicking/screaming match light rail to the southwest metro was?

Besides, maybe this is a hot take, but I think police should be forced to accept liability to be stabbed, and that knives shorter than a machete should not be considered lethal enough to shoot someone.

Yes people die from stab wounds and yes cops might die from stab wounds, but the probability of death or even permanent loss of function from a stab wound is quite low.

A knife should not be considered "above the threshold", especially when a police officer has a stand-off distance.

A knife is NOT going to be more effective than a billy club or police baton or a stun-gun. The nearest three cops should have had tazers, and the back rank guns to put someone down if they had more than a knife or crowbar.

Yeah, if we’re going to militarize police, then why not train them in hand to hand combat? About half serious there.

And why not prove more/better mental health screenings and support. Totally serious. Policing is a tough job.

I actually thought after I posted this "like, seriously, why are police partner groups not 'one melee expert plus one firearms expert'?"

With both of them trained in de-escalation tactics to lessen the chances there will be a melee or a need to use a firearm.

I would say "and an understanding of ethics" but I'll still take "hit with a stick" over "shot full of bullets".

Then again I'm not really the sort of person who visually screams on seeing them "hit with stick".

One person has in the last week, and too often before that, have said my walking stick looks like a weapon.

Just think how lucky you were that person was not packing a fire arm!!!!!!

And wearing a badge and fearing for their life.

Might at least the staff stop with the long nested quotes for a one liner thing?
Thanx in advance.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're grasping for rationales for not shooting.

So let me understand you: shooting someone is NOT a last resort thing?

The problem is you don't understand they're out of other resorts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But time and time again, what we observe from you is the protection of cowardly behavior and even murder as in the case of Derek Chauvin.

While Chauvin did wrong, his conviction and sentence were excessive and politically based. Compare that to 5x shorter sentence given to a black Muslim officer who shot and murdered an innocent white woman. Why is Chauvin public enemy number one while Mohammed Noor is largely forgotten? Because of disgusting racial politics, that's why!

Disagree--it comes down to intent.

Your counter example is an epic fuck-up but had no intent to do wrong. Chauvin intended to do wrong--he wasn't expecting to kill but he clearly was in felony assault territory.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Where did you go, superhero school? Because this isn't within the realm of reasonable combat training. Yes, at a sufficiently high level there is training for unarmed vs knife--but it's a last resort thing, not something to choose.

First, I strongly suspect you have no clue about combat training. Second, if you actually read your response and thought about it,you agreed with me. Trying to disarm should be tried before opening fire whenever possible.

You're grasping for rationales for not shooting.

I have a firm grasp on good rationales for avoiding shooting- as all police and well meaning people should. Furthermore, I find it fascinating that you think police should better trained and equipped to deal with these situations than civilians.

You're not providing any rationale, you're just arguing they should have done something else.

Even in the most restrictive states you're only required to escape if you have a sure escape--just because you could probably get away doesn't mandate that you risk your life to try. And running from a knife-wielder when encumbered is nothing like a sure escape.

 

[Toni]

You're grasping for rationales for not shooting.

So let me understand you: shooting someone is NOT a last resort thing?

The problem is you don't understand they're out of other resorts.

I honestly don’t buy that -and if it’s true, then they had terrible training.

Putting a loaded gun in someone’s hand ( or holster) makes it seem like the best, safest choice. Which is only true if you are fine with street executions. It seems you are, provided the executioner wears a police uniform.

OTOH, I am not in favor of street executions.

Im not even in favor the death penalty after a fair and just trial resulting in a conviction.

 

[Toni]

Where did you go, superhero school? Because this isn't within the realm of reasonable combat training. Yes, at a sufficiently high level there is training for unarmed vs knife--but it's a last resort thing, not something to choose.

First, I strongly suspect you have no clue about combat training. Second, if you actually read your response and thought about it,you agreed with me. Trying to disarm should be tried before opening fire whenever possible.

You're grasping for rationales for not shooting.

I have a firm grasp on good rationales for avoiding shooting- as all police and well meaning people should. Furthermore, I find it fascinating that you think police should better trained and equipped to deal with these situations than civilians.

You're not providing any rationale, you're just arguing they should have done something else.

Even in the most restrictive states you're only required to escape if you have a sure escape--just because you could probably get away doesn't mandate that you risk your life to try. And running from a knife-wielder when encumbered is nothing like a sure escape.

Encumbered by what? A loaded gun?

I am flabbergasted that you seem to ignore the risk to the public of having multiple police officers firing at a person armed with a …kitchen knife. We don’t even know what that means in this case. Is it a butter knife? A butcher knife? A paring knife? A table knife? Just how poorly were these officers trained that firing so many rounds into a single person seemed like their only option??

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The media did not sanctify Brown. It reported what people who knew him said about him, just as they usually do when someone is suddenly in the news. "He was always so quiet", "I talked to him about his garden just yesterday", "They had this creepy way of staring at people walking past their house", "She never met a cat she didn't like", etc., etc.

I don't know why you have a problem accepting the fact that people you don't like can have friends who do like them. Or that news outlets frequently quote people who knew an individual when they are reporting on stories about them.

The problem is the news is always trying to stir up controversy. "Unjustified shooting" is far more newsworthy than "justified shooting". They play up disputes that don't really exist.

The article was about the long history of black people in this country being killed following minor infractions or transgressions against 'order'. Till allegedly whistled at a white woman, Brown was stopped by Officer Wilson for jaywalking, Crawford was talking on a cell phone while holding an unboxed pellet gun, etc.

Same thing I was saying above--playing to controversy. "Shot for jaywalking" is a lot more newsworthy than "shot for trying to take the officer's gun." Or one I just saw today, "shot for shoplifting" when it was really "shot for driving at an officer."

 

[laughing dog]

Where did you go, superhero school? Because this isn't within the realm of reasonable combat training. Yes, at a sufficiently high level there is training for unarmed vs knife--but it's a last resort thing, not something to choose.

First, I strongly suspect you have no clue about combat training. Second, if you actually read your response and thought about it,you agreed with me. Trying to disarm should be tried before opening fire whenever possible.

You're grasping for rationales for not shooting.

I have a firm grasp on good rationales for avoiding shooting- as all police and well meaning people should. Furthermore, I find it fascinating that you think police should better trained and equipped to deal with these situations than civilians.

You're not providing any rationale, you're just arguing they should have done something else.

Even in the most restrictive states you're only required to escape if you have a sure escape--just because you could probably get away doesn't mandate that you risk your life to try. And running from a knife-wielder when encumbered is nothing like a sure escape.

No one is talking about what is required or mandated or escaping or being encumbered, so your entire response is just another tired exercise of you literally manufacturing excuses to defend police killings.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Besides, maybe this is a hot take, but I think police should be forced to accept liability to be stabbed, and that knives shorter than a machete should not be considered lethal enough to shoot someone.

Yes people die from stab wounds and yes cops might die from stab wounds, but the probability of death or even permanent loss of function from a stab wound is quite low.

Got some evidence of this?

Because I quickly find a study that had 7.7% of stab wound victims die. (It was looking at means of transport so this would exclude any victims not rushed to the hospital.)

A knife should not be considered "above the threshold", especially when a police officer has a stand-off distance.

A knife is only considered a deadly threat if they're close enough. 1 second is about the closest you can let them approach because human reaction time isn't instant, nor are most shots instant stops.

A knife is NOT going to be more effective than a billy club or police baton or a stun-gun. The nearest three cops should have had tazers, and the back rank guns to put someone down if they had more than a knife or crowbar.

More than a crowbar???? A crowbar is most certainly deadly force if it's used in an overhead swing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

With both of them trained in de-escalation tactics to lessen the chances there will be a melee or a need to use a firearm.

"Deescalation tactics" isn't some magic spell to resolve these things. Most of the time when things go bad they go bad very fast.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're grasping for rationales for not shooting.

So let me understand you: shooting someone is NOT a last resort thing?

The problem is you don't understand they're out of other resorts.

I honestly don’t buy that -and if it’s true, then they had terrible training.

Putting a loaded gun in someone’s hand ( or holster) makes it seem like the best, safest choice. Which is only true if you are fine with street executions. It seems you are, provided the executioner wears a police uniform.

OTOH, I am not in favor of street executions.

Im not even in favor the death penalty after a fair and just trial resulting in a conviction.

You still show that you don't understand the difference between execution and self defense. You don't like the outcome so you decide it must have been wrong--but you're not even remotely showing that wrongness.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're not providing any rationale, you're just arguing they should have done something else.

Even in the most restrictive states you're only required to escape if you have a sure escape--just because you could probably get away doesn't mandate that you risk your life to try. And running from a knife-wielder when encumbered is nothing like a sure escape.

Encumbered by what? A loaded gun?

Take a look at an officer sometime. First link I find the Google snippet says 20-25 pounds of gear on the belt. And add the vest they're likely wearing.

I am flabbergasted that you seem to ignore the risk to the public of having multiple police officers firing at a person armed with a …kitchen knife. We don’t even know what that means in this case. Is it a butter knife? A butcher knife? A paring knife? A table knife? Just how poorly were these officers trained that firing so many rounds into a single person seemed like their only option??

I'm thinking of the knife block in our kitchen--the hone would have a pretty hard time killing, as would the shears. Everything else certainly could kill.

And I've already repeatedly pointed out that the number of rounds doesn't prove wrongdoing.

An experienced shooter (and I would assume most all police qualify) can shoot something like 4 to 5 rounds per second. The human decision loop to react to major changes (such as deciding "this guy is no longer a threat, stop shooting") is over 1 second. Thus you would expect at least 4 rounds even if the first one was an instant stop. Add in a few more officers and the round count obviously goes way up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Besides, maybe this is a hot take, but I think police should be forced to accept liability to be stabbed, and that knives shorter than a machete should not be considered lethal enough to shoot someone.

Yes people die from stab wounds and yes cops might die from stab wounds, but the probability of death or even permanent loss of function from a stab wound is quite low.

Got some evidence of this?

Because I quickly find a study that had 7.7% of stab wound victims die. (It was looking at means of transport so this would exclude any victims not rushed to the hospital.)

A knife should not be considered "above the threshold", especially when a police officer has a stand-off distance.

A knife is only considered a deadly threat if they're close enough. 1 second is about the closest you can let them approach because human reaction time isn't instant, nor are most shots instant stops.

A knife is NOT going to be more effective than a billy club or police baton or a stun-gun. The nearest three cops should have had tazers, and the back rank guns to put someone down if they had more than a knife or crowbar.

More than a crowbar???? A crowbar is most certainly deadly force if it's used in an overhead swing.

Where did you go, superhero school? Because this isn't within the realm of reasonable combat training. Yes, at a sufficiently high level there is training for unarmed vs knife--but it's a last resort thing, not something to choose.

First, I strongly suspect you have no clue about combat training. Second, if you actually read your response and thought about it,you agreed with me. Trying to disarm should be tried before opening fire whenever possible.

You're grasping for rationales for not shooting.

I have a firm grasp on good rationales for avoiding shooting- as all police and well meaning people should. Furthermore, I find it fascinating that you think police should better trained and equipped to deal with these situations than civilians.

You're not providing any rationale, you're just arguing they should have done something else.

Even in the most restrictive states you're only required to escape if you have a sure escape--just because you could probably get away doesn't mandate that you risk your life to try. And running from a knife-wielder when encumbered is nothing like a sure escape.

No one is talking about what is required or mandated or escaping or being encumbered, so your entire response is just another tired exercise of you literally manufacturing excuses to defend police killings.

So you're no one? Because in this very thread you're saying they should run from the knife--and I'm saying even the most restrictive laws only require running when there's a sure escape and this most certainly is not a sure escape.

 

[Toni]

You're not providing any rationale, you're just arguing they should have done something else.

Even in the most restrictive states you're only required to escape if you have a sure escape--just because you could probably get away doesn't mandate that you risk your life to try. And running from a knife-wielder when encumbered is nothing like a sure escape.

Encumbered by what? A loaded gun?

Take a look at an officer sometime. First link I find the Google snippet says 20-25 pounds of gear on the belt. And add the vest they're likely wearing.

I am flabbergasted that you seem to ignore the risk to the public of having multiple police officers firing at a person armed with a …kitchen knife. We don’t even know what that means in this case. Is it a butter knife? A butcher knife? A paring knife? A table knife? Just how poorly were these officers trained that firing so many rounds into a single person seemed like their only option??

I'm thinking of the knife block in our kitchen--the hone would have a pretty hard time killing, as would the shears. Everything else certainly could kill.

And I've already repeatedly pointed out that the number of rounds doesn't prove wrongdoing.

An experienced shooter (and I would assume most all police qualify) can shoot something like 4 to 5 rounds per second. The human decision loop to react to major changes (such as deciding "this guy is no longer a threat, stop shooting") is over 1 second. Thus you would expect at least 4 rounds even if the first one was an instant stop. Add in a few more officers and the round count obviously goes way up.

Wow. That much gear and outnumbering a guy several times over and they….have to shoot him to death. Missing most of the time at close range.

You’ve more than made my point.

 

[Toni]

You're grasping for rationales for not shooting.

So let me understand you: shooting someone is NOT a last resort thing?

The problem is you don't understand they're out of other resorts.

I honestly don’t buy that -and if it’s true, then they had terrible training.

Putting a loaded gun in someone’s hand ( or holster) makes it seem like the best, safest choice. Which is only true if you are fine with street executions. It seems you are, provided the executioner wears a police uniform.

OTOH, I am not in favor of street executions.

Im not even in favor the death penalty after a fair and just trial resulting in a conviction.

You still show that you don't understand the difference between execution and self defense. You don't like the outcome so you decide it must have been wrong--but you're not even remotely showing that wrongness.

One guy with a kitchen knife vs multiple trained police officers carrying a lot of equipment plus firearms sounds like self defense for the guy who died, not the police. I can’t see it any way except execution.

Once again, you made my point.

 

[Arctish]

The media did not sanctify Brown. It reported what people who knew him said about him, just as they usually do when someone is suddenly in the news. "He was always so quiet", "I talked to him about his garden just yesterday", "They had this creepy way of staring at people walking past their house", "She never met a cat she didn't like", etc., etc.

I don't know why you have a problem accepting the fact that people you don't like can have friends who do like them. Or that news outlets frequently quote people who knew an individual when they are reporting on stories about them.

The problem is the news is always trying to stir up controversy. "Unjustified shooting" is far more newsworthy than "justified shooting". They play up disputes that don't really exist.

They report what people say and do.

If someone says a shooting was justified, they report that. If someone else says it was unjustified, they report that, too. And they report on the circumstances of the shooting and the histories and personalities of those involved, if known, so that readers will have some way of understanding how and why the events unfolded as they did.

Yes, controversies drive sales for news outlets. Yes, there are some outlets that gin up controversies where none exist, or exaggerate them beyond recognition. That's the Fox News business model in a nutshell. But that is not every news outlet reporting on every issue.

If you are dismissing discussions of justified vs. unjustified shootings merely because some news outlet reports it like it's a controversy, then you have no idea what's going on.

The article was about the long history of black people in this country being killed following minor infractions or transgressions against 'order'. Till allegedly whistled at a white woman, Brown was stopped by Officer Wilson for jaywalking, Crawford was talking on a cell phone while holding an unboxed pellet gun, etc.

Same thing I was saying above--playing to controversy. "Shot for jaywalking" is a lot more newsworthy than "shot for trying to take the officer's gun." Or one I just saw today, "shot for shoplifting" when it was really "shot for driving at an officer."

I said he was stopped for jaywalking, which is an indisputable fact thoroughly attested to by witnesses including Officer Wilson.

The stop led to an argument, which led to some kind of physical contact, which led to Wilson trying to shoot Brown from inside his car, which led to Brown running away, which led to Wilson exiting his car and fatally shooting Brown from a distance while Brown's arms were out to the sides and some say up in the air.

Wilson's life was not in danger, and neither were the lives of anyone except Brown himself, hence the controversy over his death. Also, this took place in Ferguson, MO, a town funding it's police force through citations and tickets issued to mostly black citizens for very minor infractions like jaywalking or having a non functioning car in the driveway.

The way the police department in Ferguson operated was very much in keeping with the pattern of policing noted in the article Derec found.

 

[laughing dog]

So you're no one? Because in this very thread you're saying they should run from the knife--and I'm saying even the most restrictive laws only require running when there's a sure escape and this most certainly is not a sure escape.

Please produce my words where you believe I said the police should run from an attacker with a knife because I never did.

Again, no one was discussing what is mandated or required by law, so your persistence interjection of this as sone sort of a justification reeks of desperation.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Things come in degrees. A bullet proof vest is not stab proof, but it does provide _some_ resistance to knives. Knives most likely to break through would be a combat knife, thick sharp. A kitchen knife would be less likely and depend also on kind of knife. Paring knife would be very little risk. Steak knife perhaps more risk, but also seems too flimsy. Butcher knife more risk. Combat knife, more risk. But since there were multiple officers, presumably with heavy belts, they must have had batons. And training. Training with batons and hand to hand. Perhaps training with a knife esp for ex-marines. My father was a marine. He said, if you go into a fight using a knife and you are not trained in its use, it is your own worst enemy. Of course, this is only relevant to the last part, not lead-up de-escalation. There ought to be training for that, too.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No one has forgotten Mohammed Noor or his crime which was one of panic, not murder. A bad impulsive act cost someone her life and him his career and some years of his life. It was clear that he had no intention to shoot an unarmed woman. He has since had his murder conviction overturned and was resentenced for second degree manslaughter, a more reasonable charge and in fact has recently been paroled.

Chauvin, on the other hand, had lots of time to think about what he was doing while he was doing it—in broad daylight and in front of a crowd who urged him to help Floyd rather than to continue killing him using maneuvers that are not allowed in many jurisdictions because of their high rate of inflicting fatal injuries. I don’t know whether Chauvin knowingly and deliberately killed George Floyd or if he was merely indifferent to Mr. Floyd’s life and safety. In any case, his actions were not those of someone who panicked and accidentally shot someone he mistakenly thought was a threat. No, his actions were of someone who deliberately and continuously disregarded the rights and the safety and well being of someone he had in custody. Chauvin deserved his conviction and sentence.

Clearly, then, it would have been in Chauvin's best interests to quickly shoot Floyd rather than slowly suffocate him.

Act quick enough before it got recorded.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You're grasping for rationales for not shooting.

So let me understand you: shooting someone is NOT a last resort thing?

The problem is you don't understand they're out of other resorts.

Are they? Commanding, yelling/screaming commands, guns out isn't exactly the only things in the playbook.

With both of them trained in de-escalation tactics to lessen the chances there will be a melee or a need to use a firearm.

"Deescalation tactics" isn't some magic spell to resolve these things. Most of the time when things go bad they go bad very fast.

Indeed not. Yet, in these situations, there never seems to actually be any attempts to keep a situation calm, forget deescalated.

You're grasping for rationales for not shooting.

So let me understand you: shooting someone is NOT a last resort thing?

The problem is you don't understand they're out of other resorts.

I honestly don’t buy that -and if it’s true, then they had terrible training.

Putting a loaded gun in someone’s hand ( or holster) makes it seem like the best, safest choice. Which is only true if you are fine with street executions. It seems you are, provided the executioner wears a police uniform.

OTOH, I am not in favor of street executions.

Im not even in favor the death penalty after a fair and just trial resulting in a conviction.

You still show that you don't understand the difference between execution and self defense. You don't like the outcome so you decide it must have been wrong--but you're not even remotely showing that wrongness.

One guy with a kitchen knife vs multiple trained police officers carrying a lot of equipment plus firearms sounds like self defense for the guy who died, not the police. I can’t see it any way except execution.

Once again, you made my point.

An execution involves absolutely zero threat of the person being killed. I don't think it is fair to consider this an "execution". There is danger for the officers involved. The question is, how they manage the situation from start to finish in order to minimize the necessity for any violence.

After all, once the taser is out, Officers have come to the conclusion they must at least threaten force in order to gain compliance of the person, ie, they are almost out of control of the situation.