It wasn’t a no knock warrant.
The politicians need a boogeyman.
I think it was…but the Police still knocked and announced themselves.
No. It originally was but then it was changed.
Ah. Dang, I’ve missed that. Going to check and correct the above if needed.
I haven’t read that. Do you have a link handy?
Hmm. My readings suggest they had a no-knock warrant but claimed to have knocked anyways as that specific address was deemed a soft target by the operation commander. The boyfriend claims there was pounding at the door, so that appears to be agreed on. The announcement of police seems to be disputed.
Edited a bit. Reporting is shakey
Yes, that is the issue.
This is why I’m having a hard time with you on this - I don’t disagree that cause of death needs to be determined, but you insinuate that police have a right to use abusive tactics and force based on the fact that he was on drugs (or have some otherwise unsavory aspect to them). They don’t. George Floyd should have never had a knee on his neck like that for eight minutes, fentanyl or not.
And this speaks to a larger issue (not necessarily specific to you) - we’re seeing the Right move away from commitments to equal justice under the law in favor of hit 'em a little harder and below the belt, due process is secondary, especially for people I don’t like - authoritarianism instead of liberty.
Yes, I’ve had AAs tell me this directly.
It isn’t a false narrative. The reaction may be too much, but the issue is not a fiction.
No. I’m on record that chauvin should at least be charged with some kind of negligence. He refused to roll him to the “recovery” position, nor did he attempt first aid. Both things I’m sure he had training for.
Chauvin is under arrest and charged with a crime. Almost no one, including Trump, has disputed this.
What irks me is that a short-tempered bully cop (no, I don’t think he decided to murder Floyd) who became unnecessarily and abusively rough after struggling with a potentially overdosing addict was turned in a racial event for political reasons when there is zero evidence that race played a part.
It was in NYT article.
Then they’re living with a phobia.
If they’re seriously afraid of stepping out of the house, with the police stats above…
What then is there to be said about fearing a group that makes up half of all homicide offenders at 13% of the population?
Like, 97% of all blacks are killed by other blacks in the first place…
All of them? I know plenty of whites who fear the cops.
Name a random black man who was hunted down and killed by cops. Not from 100 years ago.
Name a black man who was killed by police who wasn’t already a convicted criminal and wasn’t engaged in criminal activity at the time and who didn’t resist the cops and/or pull a weapon.
Or they are criminals.
Okay. Found it. A No-Knock warrant, but orders were given that an announcement was to be made…I interpret that as being an intradepartmental order. Could be wrong, of course.
“While the department had gotten court approval for a ‘no-knock’ entry, the orders were changed before the raid to ‘knock and announce,’ meaning that the police had to identify themselves.“
1 Like
I’ll be sure and let them know.
While the (potential) violence is an issue, it’s not simply that - it’s being pulled over, etc.
Cops aren’t categorically permitted to use lethal force against people who are resisting. Thanks anyway.
So the answer is no. Cops are not hunting down black men. And, the overwhelming majority of those who are killed had agency when it came to their fate. But hey, let’s not place unreasonable behavioral expectations on black people.
1 Like
The soft racism of lowered expectations that the left loves so much.
1 Like
Uh, no, it isn’t, because…
There is no legal justification for that “fate” as a result of “their agency”. Cops can’t use lethal force except in certain specific circumstances.
Your assessment of whether someone should have died at the hands of a police officer appears to be a weighing of their character and background, and there’s a sliding scale - the “sketchier” you are, the more justified your killing.
This isn’t accurate.
Fyi, @Sloth - this is my point from above. Someone is “bad”, it’s ok to use more force on them. Nope.
And we can’t even ask why someone resists men armed with guns. We have to accept that violent criminals like Jacob Blake are low IQ scum who should be allowed to set into motion the events that end their lives. The cops do not get any benefit of the doubt.
You live in fantasy land. The cops are called to deal with someone they know is a criminal. He fights them. He doesn’t respond to tasers or guns pointed at him. He goes to a vehicle with children in it. Let’s stop there. Cops are human beings. They are not supermen. They want to live. They don’t want a criminal to kill them or or anyone else. What should these HUMAN beings do? Wait until it’s too late? Give a violent criminal who is acting irrationally a chance? You want to place on cops a standard they can’t meet, because they are humans, while not putting a standard on black men that they should meet (especially since it’s their lives at stake).
And there is zero proof that any of these killings were racially motivated. Hence, a reason why I brought up behaviors that create the potential for a shooting. If police kill black men because they are black, then why do they kill white men?
So we’ve established that the narrative of cops hunting down black men is false.
We’ve established that the narrative of cops killing black men because they are black is false.
We’ve established that responding to the police with violence increases the odds you will get hurt or killed.
So who really has the problem? The cops or the criminals? And if the cops do have a problem it’s with dealing with violent criminals, not how they deal with black people.
I don’t know about anyone else, but when I see Jacob Blake or Rayshard Brooks, I don’t see “men” who represent their race but criminals. Then again, I’m not a racist.
3 Likes