-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Executed.
- Thread starter Maggot
- Start date
Tell a soldier to go attack the wrong position and then when he shoots the wrong guy, prosecute him.
Nope. prosecute the guy who sent him to the wrong place.
i’ll do you one more…..
i’ve spent time there. and i will tell you, of EVERYWHERE i have been, the minneapolis police department thinks they are the fucking gestapo. no contest, they are the WORST LEOs i’ve ever seen. they went out of their way to berate me and a buddy walking home one evening after having dinner out on the town. our offense? we had stopped walking during out conversation on the sidewalk. and yes, at the time i was a LEO myself. i wasnt overly impressed, and i can honestly say, i am never surprised when this same outfit repeatedly steps in shit. they can’t seem to go 6 months without fucking up.
and what is worse is, they just do not seem to learn from their mistakes.
i’ve spent time there. and i will tell you, of EVERYWHERE i have been, the minneapolis police department thinks they are the fucking gestapo. no contest, they are the WORST LEOs i’ve ever seen. they went out of their way to berate me and a buddy walking home one evening after having dinner out on the town. our offense? we had stopped walking during out conversation on the sidewalk. and yes, at the time i was a LEO myself. i wasnt overly impressed, and i can honestly say, i am never surprised when this same outfit repeatedly steps in shit. they can’t seem to go 6 months without fucking up.
and what is worse is, they just do not seem to learn from their mistakes.
Last edited:
SO i did some digging and it turns out the search was requested by St. Paul PD. Minneapolis requested they resubmit as no-knock. (Apparently search was in Minneapolis for a St Paul Crime).
source:
www.startribune.com
In addition Minneapolis PD sort of mis-labeled Amir as suspect/not a suspect. So to me -- it looks like the source of the issue is the Minneapolis PD beaurcracy/higher ups. (@myronman3 replied in the meantime essentially confirming this issue).
So WTF is going on in that PD. I'd wan't the chiefs head as it looks like a fustercluck of a dept.
So
(1) Who sent the SWAT team?
(2) Who were they looking for?
(3) Why were they at that address?
(4) Why did Minneapolis require no-knock, when St. Paul wanted a standard warrant.
I'm not saying SWAT is blameless, I want to make sure the right people get their ass kicked rather than sacrificing an officer doing his job.
source:
Minneapolis police insisted on 'no knock' warrant that led to Amir Locke's shooting death; city announces moratorium
Also, a gun rights group says Locke was acting in self-defense and his being killed by police was "completely avoidable."
www.startribune.com
In addition Minneapolis PD sort of mis-labeled Amir as suspect/not a suspect. So to me -- it looks like the source of the issue is the Minneapolis PD beaurcracy/higher ups. (@myronman3 replied in the meantime essentially confirming this issue).
So WTF is going on in that PD. I'd wan't the chiefs head as it looks like a fustercluck of a dept.
So
(1) Who sent the SWAT team?
(2) Who were they looking for?
(3) Why were they at that address?
(4) Why did Minneapolis require no-knock, when St. Paul wanted a standard warrant.
I'm not saying SWAT is blameless, I want to make sure the right people get their ass kicked rather than sacrificing an officer doing his job.
Stop looking at the world through rose colored glasses. Stop thinking in absolutes.
no knock warrants should be illegal
i.e…..may your chains rest lightly upon your wrists. it’s all fun and games when it is someone else.
frankly, i dont trust government to give anyone a fair shake anymore. unless your last name is ‘clinton’, “biden”, etc. it’s getting to the point where i really dont care what kind of “evidence” they have or THINK they have. can you trust it anyway? serious questions.
all i have seen in the last 3 years is the “justice” system weaponized and used against the citizenry. and when they dont get their way, they just refile and keep coming at you because the government has infinite resources, and can bankrupt anyone. they’ve done it to themselves- through their systematic abuse and weaponization. i flat out don’t trust them anymore- they’ve been caught lying far too many times.
Seriously... Just fucking stop.
www.ajc.com
New $1.65M settlement for parents of Georgia toddler injured...
A federal judge awarded Friday a $1.65 million settlement to the parents of “Baby Bou Bou,” the Georgia toddler injured in 2014 by deputies using a flash-bang grenade while serving a no-knock warrant.
I'll respond with your own response. I believe as a professional, you're required to understand the political underlying of any "SWAT" delivered warrant. Obviously these are special circumstances to involve an elite team of the best of the best. Which as a member of the best of the best, you'd have some sort of insight to goings ons of your department AND other local departments you work with. And is today's political environment it's your duty to do more than just follow orders.
SO i did some digging and it turns out the search was requested by St. Paul PD. Minneapolis requested they resubmit as no-knock. (Apparently search was in Minneapolis for a St Paul Crime).
source:
Minneapolis police insisted on 'no knock' warrant that led to Amir Locke's shooting death; city announces moratorium
Also, a gun rights group says Locke was acting in self-defense and his being killed by police was "completely avoidable."
In addition Minneapolis PD sort of mis-labeled Amir as suspect/not a suspect. So to me -- it looks like the source of the issue is the Minneapolis PD beaurcracy/higher ups. (@myronman3 replied in the meantime essentially confirming this issue).
So WTF is going on in that PD. I'd wan't the chiefs head as it looks like a fustercluck of a dept.
So
(1) Who sent the SWAT team?
(2) Who were they looking for?
(3) Why were they at that address?
(4) Why did Minneapolis require no-knock, when St. Paul wanted a standard warrant.
I'm not saying SWAT is blameless, I want to make sure the right people get their ass kicked rather than sacrificing an officer doing his job.
And if I didn't need more evidence of how endemic this problem has become.
Seriously... Just fucking stop.
New $1.65M settlement for parents of Georgia toddler injured...
A federal judge awarded Friday a $1.65 million settlement to the parents of “Baby Bou Bou,” the Georgia toddler injured in 2014 by deputies using a flash-bang grenade while serving a no-knock warrant.
At the end of the day, you, and only you, can take full responsibility for your actions. I certainly know when I'm doing right or wrong in my daily decisions.
No knock warrants seem to have a propensity to lead to Type I errors. Innocent person is shot, jailed or harassed. These happen when we lose track of the foundational idea that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Level of proof required is driven by the crime charged with. A police state has no room for presumption of innocence.
Type I and Type II Errors
Within probability and statistics are amazing applications with profound or unexpected results. This page explores type I and type II errors.
www.intuitor.com
Not really. You want to imply that murder as punishment for guilt by association is acceptable. By your standard, the 3 officers that stood by while Saint George overdosed should suffer similar fates.
The reason for a trial is to present all the facts ,circumstances and testimony . Not condemning or exonerating . Everyone here is afforded due process . Ok most times .
Do explain this defense…. Self defense would’ve been the victim defending himself from trigger-happy gestapo. As someone who briefly wore a badge and then served a career in the military, I can assure you I would’ve had to answer for a bad shoot.
Yeah. You expect everything to go perfect all the time or it shouldn't happen at all. Guess what? Unless you prove that the warrant was defective, the cops had the legal right to enter the residence and therefore had the right to defend themselves. The guy was killed and that is a bad thing. But thats what he got for making the decisions that he did.
Its not a bad shoot. If you're executing a warrant and an occupant pulls a gun on you and you think he’s gonna shoot you then you can shoot him first.
At what point did he present immediate threat of bodily harm or death? He woke up and got smoked. We have a right to bear arms. Thank lease explain the point in the video where he pointed a firearm at them.
I expect professionals to act professional. I'm not interested in amateurs serving no knock warrants. The onus is on them to acquire the correct subject/objects of said warrant. Not wholesale slaughter to anyone who get in there way.
And can you show where they were "defending" themselves? IIRC, they entered unannounced and guns drawn, expecting resistance. The only person in this scenario who was using "self defense" was the innocent Individual they decided to murder because they had no clue what they were doing or who they were serving warrant on.
Also, no knock warrants were never meant to collect individuals. It was meant to get the jump on criminals before they could conceal or destroy or get rid of evidence. And almost entirely was "sold" to us as drugs.
We were warned this would happen but the powers that be decided we needed less freedom and more .gov intervention.
We were warned this would happen but the powers that be decided we needed less freedom and more .gov intervention.
Qualified Immunity strikes again! Sure, there's one dead man, but think of all the glorious attorney fees that are forthcoming.
I don't think this is a single individual. While the officer who fired the shot may or may not have been working under the impression of a "good warrant" and shot very quickly (and I do often give police the benefit of the doubt), there are other individuals in play here as to where the problem is. While the officer who fired the shot may need his own reckoning, so does the person who demanded the no-knock upgrade, as do the people who placed the team there. While the cop may be the last check--multiple safeties failed, so we need an accounting of all the errors--not just the last in the chain. If an external safety fails, and an internal safety fails, and THEN someone pulls the trigger--we need to account for the 2 failures before the final failure. That may not excuse the person who pulled the trigger, but otoh it does not excuse the internal and external safety failures either. All 3 had to fail in this sequence (as an example). (EVERYONE should be accountable, not just the final officer)
I can see the 'need' for a no-knock warrent (aka 'El Chapo' type people), but I'm with you that this case it was no needed, and not even asked for. The PD executing the warrant wanted it. Something is very amiss in Minneapolis. Maybe govt needs more govt intervention like state level AG signoff on no-knocks.
Were you born stupid or did you just land on that space for your 'jump to conclusions mat' there has been 0 mention of qualified immunity.
riiiiiiiiiight. congrats. you’ve posted the least thought out posts i’ve seen in a long time. we will remember this when it is your ass in the sling. and before you run and pipe off about “can’t happen to me”, i’d be VERY careful about that. shit happens each and every day that people never see coming. ask anyone who is divorced.
no, i’d expect people running police departments to use some fucking logic. such as the st. paul PD originally having a warrant issued, which was NOT a no knock (st. paul PD was always good to deal with in my experience….never had any issues with them). and the warrant was only changed to a no knock at the minneapolis pd’s demand. someone’s head is going to roll over that shit; as it should.
overall, at this point, i think you are a moron hell bent on showing your ass and NOT putting any effort into thinking. dont forget, there is more than one of us being critical here of the minneapolis pd that have served as LEOs. so dont try the “cop hating” accusations. but given your complete lack of effort of putting forth any thought, i dont expect much other than more stupidity coming out of your mouth.
Every time Minneapolis steps on its dick the body cams are like watching cops during the early 90s.
Apparently they stopped evolving as a law enforcement agency at that point.
The tactics on this entry are tactics used during a drug raid of the early 90s on a suspect who wound be considered low risk and would never be used it today for any reason. Yet Minneapolis uses it today to search for an armed homicide suspect. Horrible.
I wonder if Minneapolis has ever heard of NTOA, let alone follow their findings or policies?
I can't say it was totally preventable, but a use of modern, nationally recognized tactics and standards would have greatly reduced the chance of this happening. Hell, even the FBI teams use tactics which would have avoided a mess like this.
Apparently they stopped evolving as a law enforcement agency at that point.
The tactics on this entry are tactics used during a drug raid of the early 90s on a suspect who wound be considered low risk and would never be used it today for any reason. Yet Minneapolis uses it today to search for an armed homicide suspect. Horrible.
I wonder if Minneapolis has ever heard of NTOA, let alone follow their findings or policies?
I can't say it was totally preventable, but a use of modern, nationally recognized tactics and standards would have greatly reduced the chance of this happening. Hell, even the FBI teams use tactics which would have avoided a mess like this.
one other thing. i’d had two times in my life where my job has been with guns and people, and using (at different levels) force.
and in both situations, i would have been fully aware about going into someone’s home the mindset needed. in the police situations, they’re going in with bulletproof gear and shields….so there is an element there. does that guarantee being shot and being ok? absolutely not. but you have to keep in mind, you ARE forcing your way into someone’s house, surprising anyone in there, AND that people do have a right to protect themselves.
due to the lack of thought exhibited by some, i’ll expand on this. entering a house, just because the one resident may have a warrant, doesnt override the fact that other people there have rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. a warrant for joey doesnt mean you can go in and execute billy, bobby, jane, and kate. you have to expect that people are going to be surprised. this is why i would be inclined to stay away from no knocks. yeah, there might be times it is justified. i think it is used way more than it should be, and goes wrong far too often.
like i said, it’s real easy when it is someone else.
and in both situations, i would have been fully aware about going into someone’s home the mindset needed. in the police situations, they’re going in with bulletproof gear and shields….so there is an element there. does that guarantee being shot and being ok? absolutely not. but you have to keep in mind, you ARE forcing your way into someone’s house, surprising anyone in there, AND that people do have a right to protect themselves.
due to the lack of thought exhibited by some, i’ll expand on this. entering a house, just because the one resident may have a warrant, doesnt override the fact that other people there have rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. a warrant for joey doesnt mean you can go in and execute billy, bobby, jane, and kate. you have to expect that people are going to be surprised. this is why i would be inclined to stay away from no knocks. yeah, there might be times it is justified. i think it is used way more than it should be, and goes wrong far too often.
like i said, it’s real easy when it is someone else.
It's the default excuse for any action that doesn't have a reasonable explanation. How long until it is mentioned? Is it in the back of the mind of the person requesting the warrant? Is it in the mind of the one signing the warrant? How about the one that wants a no knock? Will it be used as leverage during the pretrial negotiations to agree to a settlement in an effort to avoid a trial altogether?
i have only been there once, but you can look at who runs the city and the state right now and then it is obvious why it is fubar.
I read a few articles on this, looks like the cops were serving 4 warrants simultaneously at different properties looking for the suspect (who was not the guy who was shot), info that had come from a CI. Guy who was shot was staying at his cousins place.
Im sure a lot of us sleep with a firearm within reach, shit like this could happen to any of us due to bad info, wrong address, etc. No knocks need to go the way of the Dodo.
Im sure a lot of us sleep with a firearm within reach, shit like this could happen to any of us due to bad info, wrong address, etc. No knocks need to go the way of the Dodo.
What surveillance was done before the raid? What Intel was collected before?
They should have known who was there.
If a little bit of time was spent they could have picked him up on his way to KFC. But that's not nearly as fun as storming a house
They should have known who was there.
If a little bit of time was spent they could have picked him up on his way to KFC. But that's not nearly as fun as storming a house
i’ve been to a lot of places in minnesota….minneapolis is the ONLY place i’ve seen the problems i mentioned.
You know, the vast majority of this shit happens in deep blue cities.
Most cops work for the department where they live or grew up, ergo, most cops in deep blue cities are leftists.
Leftists are authoritarians.
Cops reflect their communities, because cops are products of those communities.
Most cops work for the department where they live or grew up, ergo, most cops in deep blue cities are leftists.
Leftists are authoritarians.
Cops reflect their communities, because cops are products of those communities.
If this is true then the judge that handed out four no knock warrants searching for one guy should be removed from the bench.
He should have told them to go do their homework before he let them barge into four homes fishing for someone. Then everyone else that signed off on it.
He should have told them to go do their homework before he let them barge into four homes fishing for someone. Then everyone else that signed off on it.
You know who else had proper paperwork?
The SS going after Jews sheltering in attics.
Having a piece of official paper doesn't make you righteous or moral.
"Just doing my job" never looks good in retrospect.
I’ll have to double check but I think I read in another forum that’s it’s the same judge who presided over the Chauvin (sp?) trial.
Edit... It is the same judge:
Judge in Chauvin Trial signed no-knock warrant for raid where police shot Amir Locke
A source tells KARE 11 Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill approved no-knock warrant that ended in Minneapolis police shooting and killing Amir Locke.
www.kare11.com
Can you imagine how that little one fells toward law enforcement?Seriously... Just fucking stop.
New $1.65M settlement for parents of Georgia toddler injured...
A federal judge awarded Friday a $1.65 million settlement to the parents of “Baby Bou Bou,” the Georgia toddler injured in 2014 by deputies using a flash-bang grenade while serving a no-knock warrant.
Thats really weak and shows a true lack of critical thought process. Bow to the system.. Heil Hitler.
I know first hand that this is most definitely not true in Mpls. I've done many ridealongs there and they hate liberals if anything.
MPD has been a crappy dept. for a long time but there are quite a few good cops on it and I will say that it is getting better but change takes time. The problem is the older ones the younger and newer officers are a lot better and state training has improved. I have done St Paul ridelongs too and that is an outstanding department with a lot of great officers.
According to the linked story that POS judge signed off on multiple warrants for a fishing expedition. Like I said earlier. He should have said no, get better Intel before just kicking down a bunch of doors. Whoever was involved in writing and signing of the warrants should pay out the ass and be looking for another job. Certification should be removed from them also.
I’ll have to double check but I think I read in another forum that’s it’s the same judge who presided over the Chauvin (sp?) trial.
Edit... It is the same judge:
Judge in Chauvin Trial signed no-knock warrant for raid where police shot Amir Locke
A source tells KARE 11 Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill approved no-knock warrant that ended in Minneapolis police shooting and killing Amir Locke.
In the opening lines of the Majority opinion of the 2006 Supreme Court ruling which opened the era of no-knock warrants:
"The common-law principle that law enforcement officers must announce their presence and provide residents an opportunity to open the door is an ancient one. Since 1917, when Congress passed the Espionage Act, this traditional protection has been part of federal statutory law, and is currently codified at 18 U. S. C. §3109. We applied that statute in Miller v. United States, 357 U. S. 301 (1958), and again in Sabbath v. United States, 391 U. S. 585 (1968). Finally, in Wilson, we were asked whether the rule was also a command of the Fourth Amendment. Tracing its origins in our English legal heritage, we concluded that it was." [emphasis added]
___________________
Then the ruling takes a turn for the worse, and goes on to build the argument that, unlike the past, today we can trust the professionalism of our law enforcement and should they error or go to far, citizens have a legal remedy of civil suit to keep them in check.
I'm not a legal scholar, but I disagree that we can trust power to be incorruptible and I'll point out that civil suits have little benefit to the deceased or anyone else but the rich.
Quite frankly, I still believe the Supreme Court got this wrong.
Fucking around an eroding the basic protections afforded to us in the Constitution is frankly dangerous. Accepting such erosions is likely to have consequences that we will not be willing to pay.
____________________
As Breyer stated in his dissent,
“[a]n examination of the common law of search and seizure leaves no doubt that the reasonableness of a search of a dwelling may depend in part on whether law enforcement officers announced their presence and authority prior to entering.” We noted that this “basic principle” was agreed upon by “several prominent founding-era commentators,” and “was woven quickly into the fabric of early American law” via state constitutions and statutes. We further concluded that there was “little doubt that the Framers of the Fourth Amendment thought that the method of an officer’s entry into a dwelling was among the factors to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of a search or seizure.”
[...] “to all invasions on the part of the government and its employees of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the essence of the offence; but it is the invasion of his in-defeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property.” [emphasis added]
_____________________
We can't pick and choose which part of the constitution or any other basic rights of mankind we wish to uphold.
"The common-law principle that law enforcement officers must announce their presence and provide residents an opportunity to open the door is an ancient one. Since 1917, when Congress passed the Espionage Act, this traditional protection has been part of federal statutory law, and is currently codified at 18 U. S. C. §3109. We applied that statute in Miller v. United States, 357 U. S. 301 (1958), and again in Sabbath v. United States, 391 U. S. 585 (1968). Finally, in Wilson, we were asked whether the rule was also a command of the Fourth Amendment. Tracing its origins in our English legal heritage, we concluded that it was." [emphasis added]
___________________
Then the ruling takes a turn for the worse, and goes on to build the argument that, unlike the past, today we can trust the professionalism of our law enforcement and should they error or go to far, citizens have a legal remedy of civil suit to keep them in check.
I'm not a legal scholar, but I disagree that we can trust power to be incorruptible and I'll point out that civil suits have little benefit to the deceased or anyone else but the rich.
Quite frankly, I still believe the Supreme Court got this wrong.
Fucking around an eroding the basic protections afforded to us in the Constitution is frankly dangerous. Accepting such erosions is likely to have consequences that we will not be willing to pay.
____________________
As Breyer stated in his dissent,
“[a]n examination of the common law of search and seizure leaves no doubt that the reasonableness of a search of a dwelling may depend in part on whether law enforcement officers announced their presence and authority prior to entering.” We noted that this “basic principle” was agreed upon by “several prominent founding-era commentators,” and “was woven quickly into the fabric of early American law” via state constitutions and statutes. We further concluded that there was “little doubt that the Framers of the Fourth Amendment thought that the method of an officer’s entry into a dwelling was among the factors to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of a search or seizure.”
[...] “to all invasions on the part of the government and its employees of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the essence of the offence; but it is the invasion of his in-defeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property.” [emphasis added]
_____________________
We can't pick and choose which part of the constitution or any other basic rights of mankind we wish to uphold.
Same judge with someone who a cop said was acting “suspicious” would probably sign it off
[Insert get addresses from form 4473]
Or
(Updated addresses from form 1]
[Insert get addresses from form 4473]
Or
(Updated addresses from form 1]
One way to have a lot less no-knock warrants is to make the ones that approve them to be the first ones to have to enter the subject residences. Just like all the unjustified wars after WW2, its no risk to the politicians that want the wars when they have the luxury to send others to do the dirty work.
While I agree in theory, I’m betting that approach would wind up with a lot more cases like this guy getting murdered. You think for a second that some self-righteous judge would let you live if you so much as sneezed at 3 AM while they were petrified?
I say hold the judges legally accountable for their actions just like everyone else
Last edited:
Hard to file a grievance with 3 bullets in your chest and youre dead.
Similar threads
