No thread on Patrick Lyoya?

[laughing dog]

.No need to revel in your close-mindedness.

It is not closeminded to reject a destructive, extremist movement like #BLM.

Your mischaracterization of #BLM is revesling

Examples?

Every trial is, by definition, based on hindsight.

Of course it is. One has the right to self-defence.

Both police officers and civilians have the right to self defense. But, as I have pointed out, police are expected to seek out dangerous situations in the course of their daily duties. Civilians are not.

Cool story.

First of all, it was not the wrong house. It was the address on the warrant - it's just that BT's ex boyfriend (the drug dealer) no longer lived there.

That means it was the wrong house.

As I said, they acted on their (claimed) perceptions and were acquitted because of it.
For the record, I do not buy Coffee IV's excuse. The police raid was going on for some time (his father was already in custody) at that point and others had no trouble discerning that it was police, not robbers. Add to that that previously IV threatened police and the jury erred here. He should have been convicted of attempted murder and felony murder. At least the weapons charge stuck, so he will serve some years. Not enough, but it's something.

Too bad a jury that heard all the testimony and all the evidence disagreed.

Shooting at police is still a crime even if you don't kill anybody.

Not in all cases.

In both those cases they were returning fire when people started firing at them.

In both cases, they killed someone who was not their target.

 

[Gospel]

Refresh my memory, what things do you mean in particular?

Ok, for example, whether or not Lyoya's actions can be characterized as fighting. I mean, you don't want the investigation influenced by mob pressure right? You call his actions fighting, I call it resisting and explained what fighting is not only by definition but also using boxing and MMA matches as an example. Lyoya had plenty of opportunities to "fight" with the officer in those ways (exchanging blows) but didn't. The officer was also outmatched so if Lyoya was fighting I'd think the officer would sustain injuries to reflect as such. Is it unreasonable to think these things should be considered in the investigation?

Do you think "what if" arguments should be allowed as evidence in the investigation? For example, "what if Lyoya tried to use the taser?". If so, then why not also include "what if Lyoya disregarded it & continued to run?".


As for the taser;

a) He didn't announce it (may not have been required)
b) How many times can it be fired and how many times was it fired before Lyoya allegedly gained possession of it?
c) Did the officer have the option to put distance between himself and Lyoya and issue commands?

Are those unreasonable things to consider?

Of course there should be an investigation. But that investigation should not be swayed by mob pressure.

I agree that mob pressure shouldn't sway the investigation. I also believe that police shouldn't police themselves.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Looked like "suicide by cop".

No way.

 

[laughing dog]

Mr. Stallings (one of the Derec's references of a black man acquitted of firing at police officers) is getting $1.5 million from the city of Minneapolis for the actions of its police of firing from an unmarked van at a civilian.

 

[Derec]

Mr. Stallings (one of the Derec's references of a black man acquitted of firing at police officers) is getting $1.5 million from the city of Minneapolis

More racist BS by completely useless Minneapolis city council and weak-ass mayor. No white man would get over a million dollars for shooting at police. Where is even logic in that?

 

[laughing dog]

Mr. Stallings (one of the Derec's references of a black man acquitted of firing at police officers) is getting $1.5 million from the city of Minneapolis

More racist BS by completely useless Minneapolis city council and weak-ass mayor.

The reasoning is that the police should not be randomly firing at citizens, especially from unmarked police vans.

No white man would get over a million dollars for shooting at police. Where is even logic in that?

Perhaps the logic is that the Minneapolis police would not fire randomly at a white man. Mr. Stallings did not know he was returning fire at the police - the van was unmarked.

 

[ZiprHead]

Mr. Stallings (one of the Derec's references of a black man acquitted of firing at police officers) is getting $1.5 million from the city of Minneapolis

More racist BS by completely useless Minneapolis city council and weak-ass mayor.

The reasoning is that the police should not be randomly firing at citizens, especially from unmarked police vans.

No white man would get over a million dollars for shooting at police. Where is even logic in that?

Perhaps the logic is that the Minneapolis police would not fire randomly at a white man. Mr. Stallings did not know he was returning fire at the police - the van was unmarked.

Well, you know how it goes. Them black folk ain't allowed no self defense.

 

[laughing dog]

This article ( Minneapolis pays victim of police attack $1.5 millionpresents a fuller picture of Mr. Stallings interaction with the Minneapolis Police Department:

In the days after Floyd's killing, with a curfew in effect, police officers roving in an unmarked van shot plastic bullets at Jaleel Stallings without warning. The event was documented in body-camera footage released by Stallings' lawyer after his story was first reported by the Minnesota Reformer. Stallings returned fire with a pistol, which he had a permit to legally carry, in what he later described as an attempt to defend himself against shots from unknown assailants. .... The body-camera footage released by Stallings' lawyer, Eric Rice, showed the police response to the unrest from the point of view of officers patrolling the streets of south Minneapolis firing without provocation or warning at passersby. Lt. Johnny Mercil can be heard saying he believed a group of protesters were white "because there's not looting," while Cmdr. Bruce Folkens boasted about "hunting people." Both have since left the department.....

The footage also showed a starkly different version of the Stallings encounter than the police narrative.

On May 30, 2020, just before 11 p.m., the officers were driving down Lake Street, with an officer firing plastic bullets from the open sliding door of the unmarked van. "Go home!" the officers shouted at people after shooting at them.

Stallings was standing in a parking lot with two other men. The Army veteran later said he thought someone from the dark cargo van was shooting real bullets, referring to warnings that day from Gov. Tim Walz that white supremacists were stalking the city in unmarked vehicles. Stallings took cover behind a truck and fired back, hitting the police van, the video shows.

Police raced over to Stallings, identifying themselves. Footage shows Stallings dropping face down on the ground, setting his gun aside. Police strike him repeatedly, screaming obscenities, until his face is battered and blood is spilled on the pavement. "You [expletive] shoot the cops?!"
"Who are our shooters?" an officer asks another on the scene.

"Nobody — he shot at us," replies the other, falsely.

Stallings was charged with eight felonies, including two counts of attempted murder, rioting and assault with a dangerous weapon. In the criminal complaint, the officers said they kicked Stallings because he resisted arrest.

Remember, all of the above is from the footage of the body cameras of the police. To recap: Mr. Stallings returned fire from an unmarked van. When confronted by police, he immediately surrended and was assaulted by the police. The police lied about the account, and he was charged with 8 felonies (of which he was acquited).

With all of this additional and relevant information, I wonder if Derec will change is view on this particular case and outcome.

 

[Gun Nut]

If that officer was fast enough to realize that "Action is faster than reaction" and shoot to kill in the back of the head, he was fast enough to back off.

Why should police officer have to back off in light of a perp resisting arrest?

The fact you feel the need to ask that question speaks volumes. Resisting arrest is not an automatic death sentence penalty in the USA.

Pet peeve: "This sub-task is no cause for a reaction to the whole"
No drop of water is responsible for the flood.

"Since when is death the penalty for a BLACK PERSON to simply twitch their finger slightly!!!!?one1?"
Ever since that person chose to hold a gun, point it at someone, and position that finger over the trigger, obviously.

"Since when is having a run in the park deserving of EXECUTION BY THE GOVERNMENT"
Ever since that person chose to wield a knife and run directly at a group of children while screaming, "I'll kill them all!!!", obviously.

and, most relevantly, "since when does having a little scuffle with someone create cause to be shot??"
Ever since that person chose to have a scuffle with a clearly identified police officer and attempt to take their weapon(s).

Again, it used to be the case that shooting someone in the back was considered cowardly.

and it is used to be a "war crime" to not line up in a neat row to face your enemy on an open battlefield and take turns loading and firing smoothbore muskets at each other until one side has no one left standing. Taking cover was "cowardly", too. So.. so much for that.

When one has to reach back over 150 years to prove a point, it is pretty pathetic.

But hey, if you want to justify cowardly behavior, that is your privilege.

The point I failed to make was that "shooting someone in the back" is an old term, connected with "machismo", having nothing, in the remotest sense, to do with what happens during a close-combat scuffle involving the control of a weapon.

Nonsense

But hey, if the best argument you can make is a play on words (like not being a "backstabber" if its not a physical penetration directly into the spine). then I can rest assured knowing I am holding the more correct position.

"Yup, I am justifying cowardly behavior". would have been to the point, more honest and avoided a stupid strawman.

Nope. I am accusing you of dishonest discourse, of the "just a theory" flavor. a "backstabber" or one who "shoots someone in the back" is "cowardly" because it implies a failure to face your enemy... and you are failing to leverage the feeling of "backstabbing cowardice" in this discussion about two "face to face combatants", while simultaneously gaslighting the fact of your transparently obvious tactic... and that seems to make you frustrated. awwww... here are two shits... the absolute most I can possibly give you.

 

[TSwizzle]

Looked like "suicide by cop".

Looks like murder by cop.

I don't know about that. I think anytime you get physical with a person that has a gun, the outcome is very likely going to be tragic for the non gun person. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes and all that.

 

[Toni]

Looked like "suicide by cop".

Looks like murder by cop.

I don't know about that. I think anytime you get physical with a person that has a gun, the outcome is very likely going to be tragic for the non gun person. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes and all that.

Doesn’t make it not murder.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Looked like "suicide by cop".

Looks like murder by cop.

I don't know about that. I think anytime you get physical with a person that has a gun, the outcome is very likely going to be tragic for the non gun person. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes and all that.

Suicide requires intent. This guy was just an idiot.

 

[TomC]

Looked like "suicide by cop".

Looks like murder by cop.

I don't know about that. I think anytime you get physical with a person that has a gun, the outcome is very likely going to be tragic for the non gun person. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes and all that.

Suicide requires intent. This guy was just an idiot.

No.
He was a violent drug addled criminal.

As well as an idiot. But being an idiot isn't why he's dead. It's mostly the violent part.
Tom

 

[Toni]

Looked like "suicide by cop".

Looks like murder by cop.

I don't know about that. I think anytime you get physical with a person that has a gun, the outcome is very likely going to be tragic for the non gun person. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes and all that.

Suicide requires intent. This guy was just an idiot.

No.
He was a violent drug addled criminal.

As well as an idiot. But being an idiot isn't why he's dead. It's mostly the violent part.
Tom

Not his violence. It is very very very hard to call it self defend when it involves shooting someone in the back of the head at point blank range when you are on top of him, and he’s face down and unarmed.

 

[TomC]

Suicide requires intent.

Not necessarily.

A few years back we were having a huge flood, 100 year flood. A guy up the road was a really smart guy, with a great job, and a tendency towards thrill seeking. He decided to go for a midnight kayak on the flooded river, alone. He told his wife he'd be back in a couple of hours.

It took the authorities 3 days to find his body wedged under a fallen tree. Left his wife a grieving widow, pregnant with two toddlers and no income.

Was he suicidal? Hard to say. But he did die as a result of making some super risky decisions. Whether he chose his own death is hard to say, but he did make the choices that caused it.
Tom

 

[TomC]

Not his violence.

Yes, it was Lyoya's violence that resulted in his death.
Tom

 

[TSwizzle]

Looked like "suicide by cop".

Looks like murder by cop.

I don't know about that. I think anytime you get physical with a person that has a gun, the outcome is very likely going to be tragic for the non gun person. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes and all that.

Doesn’t make it not murder.

Well maybe suicide is not correct but let's face it, Lyoya must have had some sort of death wish to go grappling with some one with a gun.

 

[TomC]

Doesn't make it not murder.

If we're going to start coming up with our own definitions of murder, based on our opinions of individual killings, I've got some things to say about abortion.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

Doesn't make it not murder.

If we're going to start coming up with our own definitions of murder, based on our opinions of individual killings, I've got some things to say about abortion.
Tom

So say it.
And please favor us with your reason(s) for saying it, so that discussion might ensue.

 

[TomC]

Doesn't make it not murder.

If we're going to start coming up with our own definitions of murder, based on our opinions of individual killings, I've got some things to say about abortion.
Tom

So say it.
And please favor us with your reason(s) for saying it, so that discussion might ensue.

If murder is the killing of a human being that one considers wrong, then Toni's post is relevant to this thread.
If not, then it isn't.

She can explain herself and her meaning if she chooses to do so. But she wasn't at all clear. Looked like emotional goading to me.
Tom