MPD conducted a no-knock warrant at an apartment, a Black man named Amir Locke was under a blanket and pulled out a pistol, leading the police to fatally shoot him. Authorities said he was not the subject of the warrant, and he legally carried the firearm. No-knock search warrants have now been suspended.

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/04/10783137 ... ck-warrant

The MPD really keeps digging themselves into a bigger hole, and that has consequences for the entire region.

af773atmsp wrote:

MPD conducted a no-knock warrant at an apartment, a Black man named Amir Locke was under a blanket and pulled out a pistol, leading the police to fatally shoot him. Authorities said he was not the subject of the warrant, and he legally carried the firearm. No-knock search warrants have now been suspended.

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/04/10783137 ... ck-warrant

The MPD really keeps digging themselves into a bigger hole, and that has consequences for the entire region.

So now police can't defend themselves when someone pulls a gun? Give me a break. As long as they Identified themselves and he pulled a gun it's justified IMO. No knock warrants serve a purpose to suspend them just gives criminals more chance to escape crime. Even though this guy wasn't the target of the warrant he should have cooperated. Would love to see why he is sleeping with a gun as well.

NIKV69 wrote:

So now police can't defend themselves when someone pulls a gun? Give me a break. As long as they Identified themselves and he pulled a gun it's justified IMO. No knock warrants serve a purpose to suspend them just gives criminals more chance to escape crime. Even though this guy wasn't the target of the warrant he should have cooperated. Would love to see why he is sleeping with a gun as well.

Why does he need a reason? If it's his right to legally own a weapon, isn't the question kind of spurious?

NIKV69 wrote:

af773atmsp wrote:

MPD conducted a no-knock warrant at an apartment, a Black man named Amir Locke was under a blanket and pulled out a pistol, leading the police to fatally shoot him. Authorities said he was not the subject of the warrant, and he legally carried the firearm. No-knock search warrants have now been suspended.

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/04/10783137 ... ck-warrant

The MPD really keeps digging themselves into a bigger hole, and that has consequences for the entire region.

So now police can't defend themselves when someone pulls a gun?

not according to skin color.. read the article.. just another day in 'Murica

Newark727 wrote:

Why does he need a reason? If it's his right to legally own a weapon, isn't the question kind of spurious?

No, we sure get a ton of anti gun sentiment here even with legal ownership it is sure refreshing that all of a sudden we get support for the right to bear arms. In any case it was his right to own the weapon but not to pull it out when police are present.

NIKV69 wrote:

So now police can't defend themselves when someone pulls a gun? Give me a break.

So now a legally armed American citizen can't try and defend himself from armed intruders? Give me a break.

Newark727 wrote:

Why does he need a reason? If it's his right to legally own a weapon, isn't the question kind of spurious?

Not if one has a long, proud history of defending the indefensible.

Did the Police identify themselves?.

scbriml wrote:

So now a legally armed American citizen can't try and defend himself from armed intruders? Give me a break.

I commend you on supporting American citizens legally owning a firearm and using it for self defense. Unless of course your name is Kyle.

bennett123 wrote:

Did the Police identify themselves?.

I would imagine they did, it's procedure for serving warrants.

NIKV69 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

So now a legally armed American citizen can't try and defend himself from armed intruders? Give me a break.

I commend you on supporting American citizens legally owning a firearm and using it for self defense. Unless of course your name is Kyle.

bennett123 wrote:

Did the Police identify themselves?.

I would imagine they did, it's procedure for serving warrants.

Newsflash: a lot of Americans are middle of the road on this - it’s possible to simultaneously support gun control AND support legal firearm ownership/self defense.

What's a no-knock warrant?
Do they just barge in unnanounced?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/no-knock_warrant

"A no-knock warrant is a search warrant authorizing police officers to enter certain premises without first knocking and announcing their presence or purpose prior to entering the premises."

Thanks.
So then my next question is:
In a nation where unrestricted gun ownership is widely allowed and where self defense with said guns within the premises of one's abode is also allowed, how is this not the stupidest idea ever?

I saw a news report that that the officers did announce prior to breaking down the door that they were police serving a warrant. The body camera's should prove that.

just another day in 'Murica - how many days ago were 2 NYPD gunned down in a apartment call? Maybe that was in the back of these Officers minds when they saw the handgun pointed at them.

Agree that these raids are too risky though.

I hate ‘no-knock warrants”. I understand that they serve a purpose and are a valuable tool in the police’s box, but they scare me a bit.

Typically, a person has a right to self-defense in their home, including using deadly force, commonly referred to the Castle Doctrine.

The Castle Doctrine does have limitations. One of those limitations is the entry of police in the conduct of their official business. Here in KY, the police are required to announce themselves as they enter the premises during the execution of a no-knock warrant. Not sure what the law looks like in MN, but I can’t imagine it’s much different.

So, whether criminal charges against the officers should come from this depends on whether they made it clear they were police officers when they went through the door. According to the article, the body-cam recordings do have the police announcing themselves.

So, let’s see what happens.

NIKV69 wrote:

I commend you on supporting American citizens legally owning a firearm and using it for self defense.

That's your unique interpretation of my words. This situation must have you spinning like a top.

Tireless defence of the police regardless of how they behave vs the right to defend yourself against armed intruders? What would your reaction be if this guy had taken out a couple of cops before they slaughtered him?

Francoflier wrote:

how is this not the stupidest idea ever?

Guns and stupidity are often found in close proximity.

Francoflier wrote:

Thanks.
So then my next question is:
In a nation where unrestricted gun ownership is widely allowed and where self defense with said guns within the premises of one's abode is also allowed, how is this not the stupidest idea ever?

What if someone is a bit paranoid and has put booby traps everywhere ?

fr8mech wrote:

I hate ‘no-knock warrants”. I understand that they serve a purpose and are a valuable tool in the police’s box, but they scare me a bit.

Typically, a person has a right to self-defense in their home, including using deadly force, commonly referred to the Castle Doctrine.

The Castle Doctrine does have limitations. One of those limitations is the entry of police in the conduct of their official business. Here in KY, the police are required to announce themselves as they enter the premises during the execution of a no-knock warrant. Not sure what the law looks like in MN, but I can’t imagine it’s much different.

So, whether criminal charges against the officers should come from this depends on whether they made it clear they were police officers when they went through the door. According to the article, the body-cam recordings do have the police announcing themselves.

So, let’s see what happens.

The attorney general in Minnesota has stated that his highest priority is to hold police accountable for their violent crimes. That priority is higher than other violent crimes.

It is likely that multiple police will be on trial for the murder of Amir Locke. No knock warrants are another one of those things that “sound plausible” as a solution until you get the world’s most perfect test cast against no knock warrants, which I believe this appears to be. Suddenly, this normal citizen was sleeping and was reasonably concerned and confused seconds after waking up. He did not fire at police. He had the right to be there and have a gun. For doing things totally within normal rights, he was shot. I understand the police are concerned for their lives, but their conduct does not survive scrutiny from a citizen’s civil rights perspective.

I will share an experience that happened a few years ago. One fine day, a gentleman came to my house and said he was a cop. I asked and he shared his photo ID and he asked for a donation for some police thing they were gonna do on the ground nearby. Apparently, they were gonna felicitate and give compensation to some widows whose husbands have been killed in the line of action. Feeling both fearful and patriotic I gave them some amount as a donation. On a whimsy, decided to visit the ground only to know nothing was happening there. I then reached the police station. Apparently, a number of people had been duped. The advice of the cop was to copy the credentials and phone the police station to verify. This is and was perhaps the most stupid advice. From what I know any call to 100 (that's the police no. in my country) goes to a central despatch and from then to the local/nearest thana (police station) under whose jurisdiction we come. Cops response time from the police station to my home is an hr. while for us to reach the police station it hardly takes 10 mins.

Even today, I don't know what the best approach is. Now, if a cop does land up (and it has happened a couple of times) I tell them about the fraud that happened with me and they leave us alone. But if a bad character were to turn up wearing a cop uniform, we would be none the wiser.

readytotaxi wrote:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/no-knock_warrant

"A no-knock warrant is a search warrant authorizing police officers to enter certain premises without first knocking and announcing their presence or purpose prior to entering the premises."

So if I’m a legal gun owner and the police barge into my property and I kill a couple of them, would the castle doctrine apply?

LCDFlight wrote:

fr8mech wrote:

I hate ‘no-knock warrants”. I understand that they serve a purpose and are a valuable tool in the police’s box, but they scare me a bit.

Typically, a person has a right to self-defense in their home, including using deadly force, commonly referred to the Castle Doctrine.

The Castle Doctrine does have limitations. One of those limitations is the entry of police in the conduct of their official business. Here in KY, the police are required to announce themselves as they enter the premises during the execution of a no-knock warrant. Not sure what the law looks like in MN, but I can’t imagine it’s much different.

So, whether criminal charges against the officers should come from this depends on whether they made it clear they were police officers when they went through the door. According to the article, the body-cam recordings do have the police announcing themselves.

So, let’s see what happens.

The attorney general in Minnesota has stated that his highest priority is to hold police accountable for their violent crimes. That priority is higher than other violent crimes.

It is likely that multiple police will be on trial for the murder of Amir Locke. No knock warrants are another one of those things that “sound plausible” as a solution until you get the world’s most perfect test cast against no knock warrants, which I believe this appears to be. Suddenly, this normal citizen was sleeping and was reasonably concerned and confused seconds after waking up. He did not fire at police. He had the right to be there and have a gun. For doing things totally within normal rights, he was shot. I understand the police are concerned for their lives, but their conduct does not survive scrutiny from a citizen’s civil rights perspective.

In no universe are cops going to be charged for shooting someone who pointed a gun at them. The police don't have to wait until one of them goes down from a gunshot wound to open fire.

Kiwirob wrote:

readytotaxi wrote:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/no-knock_warrant

"A no-knock warrant is a search warrant authorizing police officers to enter certain premises without first knocking and announcing their presence or purpose prior to entering the premises."

So if I’m a legal gun owner and the police barge into my property and I kill a couple of them, would the castle doctrine apply?

It depends on if they identified themselves or not. There have been cases in which the police did not identify themselves and were in plain clothes serving a warrant and the homeowner was not charged for opening fire on them. Even in the Breonna Taylor case, the boyfriend shot and nearly killed a police officer and charges against him were dropped.

In this case, however, the officers can clearly be heard shouting "Police!" as they entered the apartment. They were also in full uniform with "POLICE" in all caps clearly visible on their vests.

fr8mech wrote:

I hate ‘no-knock warrants”. I understand that they serve a purpose and are a valuable tool in the police’s box, but they scare me a bit.

Typically, a person has a right to self-defense in their home, including using deadly force, commonly referred to the Castle Doctrine.

The Castle Doctrine does have limitations. One of those limitations is the entry of police in the conduct of their official business. Here in KY, the police are required to announce themselves as they enter the premises during the execution of a no-knock warrant. Not sure what the law looks like in MN, but I can’t imagine it’s much different.

So, whether criminal charges against the officers should come from this depends on whether they made it clear they were police officers when they went through the door. According to the article, the body-cam recordings do have the police announcing themselves.

So, let’s see what happens.

I read the HuffPo article about this.
Apparently he was asleep and is known to be a deep sleeper and probably had no idea what was going on. This doesn't look good on the cops especially because the victim was a legal gun owner and asleep.

The discussion needs to be had. Are laws like the castle doctrine, Stand your ground, open carry only rights that only white people get. On the books its all citizens but doesn't appear apply to minorities.

I have heard this statement before and tend to agree with it. I think Killer Mike said it.

"If you want government action on the 2nd amendment, you have a peaceful march on Washington with all minority gun owners open carrying. There will be legislation to change the 2nd amendment by noon.

StarAC17 wrote:

fr8mech wrote:

I hate ‘no-knock warrants”. I understand that they serve a purpose and are a valuable tool in the police’s box, but they scare me a bit.

Typically, a person has a right to self-defense in their home, including using deadly force, commonly referred to the Castle Doctrine.

The Castle Doctrine does have limitations. One of those limitations is the entry of police in the conduct of their official business. Here in KY, the police are required to announce themselves as they enter the premises during the execution of a no-knock warrant. Not sure what the law looks like in MN, but I can’t imagine it’s much different.

So, whether criminal charges against the officers should come from this depends on whether they made it clear they were police officers when they went through the door. According to the article, the body-cam recordings do have the police announcing themselves.

So, let’s see what happens.

I read the HuffPo article about this.
Apparently he was asleep and is known to be a deep sleeper and probably had no idea what was going on. This doesn't look good on the cops especially because the victim was a legal gun owner and asleep.

The discussion needs to be had. Are laws like the castle doctrine, Stand your ground, open carry only rights that only white people get. On the books its all citizens but doesn't appear apply to minorities.

I have heard this statement before and tend to agree with it. I think Killer Mike said it.

"If you want government action on the 2nd amendment, you have a peaceful march on Washington with all minority gun owners open carrying. There will be legislation to change the 2nd amendment by noon.

There is already a well-armed all black militia known as the NFAC. They have shown up at numerous events and the only trouble they had was an accidental discharge that wounded some of their own members.

StarAC17 wrote:

fr8mech wrote:

I hate ‘no-knock warrants”. I understand that they serve a purpose and are a valuable tool in the police’s box, but they scare me a bit.

Typically, a person has a right to self-defense in their home, including using deadly force, commonly referred to the Castle Doctrine.

The Castle Doctrine does have limitations. One of those limitations is the entry of police in the conduct of their official business. Here in KY, the police are required to announce themselves as they enter the premises during the execution of a no-knock warrant. Not sure what the law looks like in MN, but I can’t imagine it’s much different.

So, whether criminal charges against the officers should come from this depends on whether they made it clear they were police officers when they went through the door. According to the article, the body-cam recordings do have the police announcing themselves.

So, let’s see what happens.

I read the HuffPo article about this.
Apparently he was asleep and is known to be a deep sleeper and probably had no idea what was going on. This doesn't look good on the cops especially because the victim was a legal gun owner and asleep.

The discussion needs to be had. Are laws like the castle doctrine, Stand your ground, open carry only rights that only white people get. On the books its all citizens but doesn't appear apply to minorities.

I have heard this statement before and tend to agree with it. I think Killer Mike said it.

"If you want government action on the 2nd amendment, you have a peaceful march on Washington with all minority gun owners open carrying. There will be legislation to change the 2nd amendment by noon.

If you agree with that then I suggest you diversify your news sources and step outside your bubble. There's been several pro-2nd ammendment marches organized by black groups across the country in the past few years.

Guess what, there was no legislation proposed by noon on those days.

TriJets wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

fr8mech wrote:

I hate ‘no-knock warrants”. I understand that they serve a purpose and are a valuable tool in the police’s box, but they scare me a bit.

Typically, a person has a right to self-defense in their home, including using deadly force, commonly referred to the Castle Doctrine.

The Castle Doctrine does have limitations. One of those limitations is the entry of police in the conduct of their official business. Here in KY, the police are required to announce themselves as they enter the premises during the execution of a no-knock warrant. Not sure what the law looks like in MN, but I can’t imagine it’s much different.

So, whether criminal charges against the officers should come from this depends on whether they made it clear they were police officers when they went through the door. According to the article, the body-cam recordings do have the police announcing themselves.

So, let’s see what happens.

The attorney general in Minnesota has stated that his highest priority is to hold police accountable for their violent crimes. That priority is higher than other violent crimes.

It is likely that multiple police will be on trial for the murder of Amir Locke. No knock warrants are another one of those things that “sound plausible” as a solution until you get the world’s most perfect test cast against no knock warrants, which I believe this appears to be. Suddenly, this normal citizen was sleeping and was reasonably concerned and confused seconds after waking up. He did not fire at police. He had the right to be there and have a gun. For doing things totally within normal rights, he was shot. I understand the police are concerned for their lives, but their conduct does not survive scrutiny from a citizen’s civil rights perspective.

In no universe are cops going to be charged for shooting someone who pointed a gun at them. The police don't have to wait until one of them goes down from a gunshot wound to open fire.

No, it depends on more circumstances than that. Was his possession of the gun unreasonable or criminal? No it was not. This is an insanely difficult legal situation. A guy legally has a gun in his bed. So you can shoot him in his bed without knocking? Times change. I think the shooter in this case will be visiting a jail cell.

LCDFlight wrote:

TriJets wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

The attorney general in Minnesota has stated that his highest priority is to hold police accountable for their violent crimes. That priority is higher than other violent crimes.

It is likely that multiple police will be on trial for the murder of Amir Locke. No knock warrants are another one of those things that “sound plausible” as a solution until you get the world’s most perfect test cast against no knock warrants, which I believe this appears to be. Suddenly, this normal citizen was sleeping and was reasonably concerned and confused seconds after waking up. He did not fire at police. He had the right to be there and have a gun. For doing things totally within normal rights, he was shot. I understand the police are concerned for their lives, but their conduct does not survive scrutiny from a citizen’s civil rights perspective.

In no universe are cops going to be charged for shooting someone who pointed a gun at them. The police don't have to wait until one of them goes down from a gunshot wound to open fire.

No, it depends on more circumstances than that. Was his possession of the gun unreasonable or criminal? No it was not. This is an insanely difficult legal situation. A guy legally has a gun in his bed. So you can shoot him in his bed without knocking? Times change. I think the shooter in this case will be visiting a jail cell.

It doesn't matter if the gun is legal or not, if it is pointed at an officer that officer can open fire. As I said, they announced themselves loudly and were in full uniform. The police have every right to defend themselves and do not have to wait until they are shot to open fire.

Just because they yell police doesn't mean someone will automatically assume it is indeed the police. Anders Breivik dressed and identified himself as a police officer when he was at Utøya, and we all know what happened next. That's one of the extreme examples of someone pretending to be a police officer for malicious intent, but there are many examples out there big and small of people pretending to be a police officer or some other authorized person.

af773atmsp wrote:

Just because they yell police doesn't mean someone will automatically assume it is indeed the police. Anders Breivik dressed and identified himself as a police officer when he was at Utøya, and we all know what happened next. That's one of the extreme examples of someone pretending to be a police officer for malicious intent, but there are many examples out there big and small of people pretending to be a police officer or some other authorized person.

This massacre in Nova Scotia in April 2020 is another one where the shooter was dressed as a police officer and had a replica RCMP car.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nova_Scotia_attacks

SoCalPilot wrote:

If you agree with that then I suggest you diversify your news sources and step outside your bubble. There's been several pro-2nd ammendment marches organized by black groups across the country in the past few years.

Guess what, there was no legislation proposed by noon on those days.

Exactly, I find it hysterical that all of a sudden the anti gun crowd here have become champions for gun ownership. The agenda is obvious but the police will not be held for any wrong doing here. No matter how much Ben Crump yells horrible toxic rhetoric. I just hope he doesn't rile up the people who look to destroy every time something like this takes place. It could a tough time for Minneapolis and business owners.

af773atmsp wrote:

Just because they yell police doesn't mean someone will automatically assume it is indeed the police. Anders Breivik dressed and identified himself as a police officer when he was at Utøya, and we all know what happened next. That's one of the extreme examples of someone pretending to be a police officer for malicious intent, but there are many examples out there big and small of people pretending to be a police officer or some other authorized person.

This is true, but we as a society can't simply decide to ignore all orders from police officers on the extraordinarily minimal risk that the officer is actually an imposter.

To be clear, I don't necessarily blame the man in Minneapolis for grabbing a gun as he may have been confused if he was woken from a deep sleep. I also don't blame the police officer for opening fire when he was facing a pistol while serving a murder warrant. It is just a terrible situation all the way around.

A no-knock warrant is executed and a person is shot and killed by police?

Hmm, y'all remember that one time......in Louisville.......

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

One lesson from my S&W CCW course, put a defensive weapon far enough away to ensure you are fully awake BEFORE reaching for it. I’d add, don’t live where needing a firearm that quickly is remotely required or engage in or appear to engage in illegal activities.

Is this the GOP and NRA’s new talking points - telling people where to live by calculating the average number of seconds it takes to get your gun at night? You must lead a confused life son. The talking points are tripping you up. You should have as many guns as you can fit inside your home but when someone comes smashing through the front door in the middle of the night don’t use the guns until you’ve verified it’s the police but if it’s a murderer ask him to hold on until you can grab some coffee and unlock your weapons cabinet. The logic is so devoid of any it that it makes me question the believer’s ability to manage the most basic functions in life. Can I ask you to unpack that a bit more?

Just watched the video. The first shout of "police search warrant" was pretty clear, but if the chap was asleep there is little chance he would have understood the words. Might have woken him up though. Thereafter the police are shouting over eachother and if you've just been woken I think it would be very difficult to understand a word they were shouting. Add to that the dark room and the torches being pointed at him and I doubt he knew whether they were police, home invaders or space aliens before he was shot dead.

TriJets wrote:

In this case, however, the officers can clearly be heard shouting "Police!" as they entered the apartment. They were also in full uniform with "POLICE" in all caps clearly visible on their vests.

Now imagine being fast asleep and then shocked awake to find a number of armed men smashing their way into your house and all yelling at you. I doubt many people would instantly recognise what the situation was let alone focus enough to actually hear what's being yelled at them and read what it says on their chest or back.

wingman wrote:

Is this the GOP and NRA’s new talking points - telling people where to live by calculating the average number of seconds it takes to get your gun at night? You must lead a confused life son. The talking points are tripping you up. You should have as many guns as you can fit inside your home but when someone comes smashing through the front door in the middle of the night don’t use the guns until you’ve verified it’s the police but if it’s a murderer ask him to hold on until you can grab some coffee and unlock your weapons cabinet. The logic is so devoid of any it that it makes me question the believer’s ability to manage the most basic functions in life. Can I ask you to unpack that a bit more?

Remember, when seconds count, the police are minutes away! Except of course now your gun is also a bit further way than a few seconds…

So many think they’ll have their Rambo moment when their “fortress” of a house is burgled. That they’ll awaken to a higher state of awareness from the sound of shoelaces scraping on tile downstairs, don their headband and war paint, draw their gun and go downstairs and put a grapefruit size hole in the villains chest as eagles fly in and the chief of police makes him an officer. All this against someone who’s probably already hyper aware of their surroundings and every tiny noise they make and probably isn’t there to die over a TV and some jewelry,

The hypocrisy is spectacular. You cannot make any argument that gun ownership for home defense is justified while also defending the police shooting in this case.

Interesting how no knock warrants are supposed to reduce the threat to police and are meant to take the perp and evidence quickly and easy, yet people keep ending up dead…almost seems like if the case is so flimsy that you need to bust down a door at 2am to make sure evidence isn’t destroyed in the 15 seconds before yelling “police!” And entering the house then maybe it’s time to return to the drawing board

TriJets wrote:

To be clear, I don't necessarily blame the man in Minneapolis for grabbing a gun as he may have been confused if he was woken from a deep sleep. I also don't blame the police officer for opening fire when he was facing a pistol while serving a murder warrant. It is just a terrible situation all the way around.

This seems like a reasonable take. But couldn't there been a way of carrying out the raid that allowed for a bit more opportunity to deescalate?

Next time an armed burglar comes barging in my bedroom, I'll kindly ask him to provide his ID, then he'll wait for me to grab my guns from the locked cabinet downstairs, and finally I'll inform him that this is a friendly gun-free neighborhood so I don't actually have any guns and he should please also have the courtesy of removing his. Then we call the police and he waits a few minutes until they arrive and turns himself in to get arrested.

Seriously, if you believe in the right to bear arms for self-defence this man did everything right (and his skin color should play no role here - the 2nd amendment applies to all citizens). Unfortunately, his attempt to protect himself cost him his life. But at least no good guys were hurt, just a bit of collateral damage.

NIKV69 wrote:

SoCalPilot wrote:

If you agree with that then I suggest you diversify your news sources and step outside your bubble. There's been several pro-2nd ammendment marches organized by black groups across the country in the past few years.

Guess what, there was no legislation proposed by noon on those days.

Exactly, I find it hysterical that all of a sudden the anti gun crowd here have become champions for gun ownership. The agenda is obvious but the police will not be held for any wrong doing here. No matter how much Ben Crump yells horrible toxic rhetoric. I just hope he doesn't rile up the people who look to destroy every time something like this takes place. It could a tough time for Minneapolis and business owners.

The sheer incompetence of US police forces also need to be taken into account. A no knock warrant is utterly ridiculous.

FGITD wrote:

Interesting how no knock warrants are supposed to reduce the threat to police and are meant to take the perp and evidence quickly and easy, yet people keep ending up dead…almost seems like if the case is so flimsy that you need to bust down a door at 2am to make sure evidence isn’t destroyed in the 15 seconds before yelling “police!” And entering the house then maybe it’s time to return to the drawing board

Maybe the police should make sure that they're at the right address before destroying peoples' property and pointing guns in their faces. "Oops, killed the wrong person. Whatever. We'll get 'em next time!"

scbriml wrote:

TriJets wrote:

In this case, however, the officers can clearly be heard shouting "Police!" as they entered the apartment. They were also in full uniform with "POLICE" in all caps clearly visible on their vests.

Now imagine being fast asleep and then shocked awake to find a number of armed men smashing their way into your house and all yelling at you. I doubt many people would instantly recognise what the situation was let alone focus enough to actually hear what's being yelled at them and read what it says on their chest or back.

I definitely understand that, just like I understand serving a murder warrant and finding a man pointing a gun at you shortly after you enter a residence. Terrible situation for all involved.

Newark727 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

To be clear, I don't necessarily blame the man in Minneapolis for grabbing a gun as he may have been confused if he was woken from a deep sleep. I also don't blame the police officer for opening fire when he was facing a pistol while serving a murder warrant. It is just a terrible situation all the way around.

This seems like a reasonable take. But couldn't there been a way of carrying out the raid that allowed for a bit more opportunity to deescalate?

I'm sure there could have been and hope they make changes going forward. IMO, no-knocks should be reserved for hostage situations, suspected terrorists, etc and should be incredibly rare. As we saw this week, the raids can put all involved in a no-win situation.

mxaxai wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Interesting how no knock warrants are supposed to reduce the threat to police and are meant to take the perp and evidence quickly and easy, yet people keep ending up dead…almost seems like if the case is so flimsy that you need to bust down a door at 2am to make sure evidence isn’t destroyed in the 15 seconds before yelling “police!” And entering the house then maybe it’s time to return to the drawing board

Maybe the police should make sure that they're at the right address before destroying peoples' property and pointing guns in their faces. "Oops, killed the wrong person. Whatever. We'll get 'em next time!"

That's not really relevant to this case as the police were at the right address. This man didn't live at the address so they likely didn't expect him to be there.

How silly of us all. Just up and move!

I’ve also followed their advice, I previously was poor but then I simply decided to become wealthy and so I did.

I understand the basic premise, but does anyone really believe most people that live in dangerous, questionable, neighborhoods are there because they want to be?

TriJets wrote:

That's not really relevant to this case as the police were at the right address. This man didn't live at the address so they likely didn't expect him to be there.

The police did not find the suspect in the apartment, so clearly they were in the wrong place. Perhaps the correct address as per the warrant but still the wrong place overall. The police apparently filed warrants for three different appartments in the building, which suggests that they had nothing but a vague idea where the suspect might be.

FGITD wrote:

How silly of us all. Just up and move!

I’ve also followed their advice, I previously was poor but then I simply decided to become wealthy and so I did.

I understand the basic premise, but does anyone really believe most people that live in dangerous, questionable, neighborhoods are there because they want to be?

Of course. And, if these folks aren’t making enough to move, easy peasy. Obviously they just need to get a better paying job. Life could be so simple huh?

TriJets wrote:

af773atmsp wrote:

Just because they yell police doesn't mean someone will automatically assume it is indeed the police. Anders Breivik dressed and identified himself as a police officer when he was at Utøya, and we all know what happened next. That's one of the extreme examples of someone pretending to be a police officer for malicious intent, but there are many examples out there big and small of people pretending to be a police officer or some other authorized person.

This is true, but we as a society can't simply decide to ignore all orders from police officers on the extraordinarily minimal risk that the officer is actually an imposter.

To be clear, I don't necessarily blame the man in Minneapolis for grabbing a gun as he may have been confused if he was woken from a deep sleep. I also don't blame the police officer for opening fire when he was facing a pistol while serving a murder warrant. It is just a terrible situation all the way around.

And what if Locke decided to defend himself by killing one or more of the officers? George Floyd, for example, would have been justified in ending Derek Chauvin’s criminal attack with a gun. I think Amir Locke would have had an even stronger self defense case. Anyway, it is better to do that than end up murdered. And I’m not saying Locke was definitely murdered. But if he was, then he had a legitimate right to self defense.

LCDFlight wrote:

TriJets wrote:

af773atmsp wrote:

Just because they yell police doesn't mean someone will automatically assume it is indeed the police. Anders Breivik dressed and identified himself as a police officer when he was at Utøya, and we all know what happened next. That's one of the extreme examples of someone pretending to be a police officer for malicious intent, but there are many examples out there big and small of people pretending to be a police officer or some other authorized person.

This is true, but we as a society can't simply decide to ignore all orders from police officers on the extraordinarily minimal risk that the officer is actually an imposter.

To be clear, I don't necessarily blame the man in Minneapolis for grabbing a gun as he may have been confused if he was woken from a deep sleep. I also don't blame the police officer for opening fire when he was facing a pistol while serving a murder warrant. It is just a terrible situation all the way around.

And what if Locke decided to defend himself by killing one or more of the officers? George Floyd, for example, would have been justified in ending Derek Chauvin’s criminal attack with a gun. I think Amir Locke would have had an even stronger self defense case. Anyway, it is better to do that than end up murdered. And I’m not saying Locke was definitely murdered. But if he was, then he had a legitimate right to self defense.

Sometimes both parties can have a valid claim for self-defense.