A police officer fatally shot a Black man, identified as Daunte Wright, after he was pulled over in a Minneapolis suburb Sunday, leading to clashes between protesters and law enforcement. On Monday, the police chief for the city of Brooklyn Center said the unidentified officer intended to use her Taser but instead grabbed her gun and shot Wright.
During a press conference, police released bodycam video of the shooting. In the video, the officer who shot Wright shouted “Taser” multiple times before firing her gun at Wright at close range while Wright was in the driver’s seat.
“I just shot him,” the officer said as the car drove away.
This officer should not have been armed. She should not have been on the street. She just murdered a man “by accident”, only it’s not an accident if you are so badly trained that you blast away with a firearm when you “intended” to use a taser.
Why do the police need guns to make traffic stops? Why did she even need to use a taser against him?
Exactly.
A cop who “thought” they were using a taser, when they were actually using a gun? That’s the exact same excuse used by the cop who shot Oscar Grant in Oakland, Calif, used.
Clearly, he was a menace to society, with that air freshener hanging from his rearview mirror.
I am so god-damned, motherfucking tired of this shit. How can you be human and not see that something is very, very, fucking wrong with this country?
Well, the two are obviously identical, with the bangy version weighing in at 32 – 34 oz and a Taser weighing in at a tad less than a half pound and having a laser sight that isn’t a part of a department Glock.
First hint would be the major difference in weight, as steel slide and barrel, plus lead bullets are much heavier than plastic. Department issued Tasers have a built in laser sight.
And the Taser is normally worn on one’s non-dominent side, as in if one is right handed, it gets worn on the left side.
So, we’re looking at someone who couldn’t tell left from right, heavy from light and didn’t notice that the raised weapon was not illuminating what is being aimed at.
That’s a whole level of incompetence that beggars belief!
Even assuming there was, as reported, an outstanding warrant for his arrest–from 10 months ago–what’s so bad about letting him flee? Go to his house later, peacefully, after the heat of the moment. He’s clearly not public enemy number one. He’s a guy whose first reaction to getting pulled over was to call his mom. I’m sure he was terrified that the situation would turn out exactly as it did.
This means that we’re allowed to shoot back at cops, as long as we keep yelling “nonviolent compliance!” while doing it, right?
I was a Navy corpsman and spent some time with the Fleet Marine Force. I qualified on a number of weapons. They all had safeties. You have to manually flip that button to engage the weapon. Plus, you’ve all heard the old expression “lock and load,” right? That means the round just doesn’t magically enter the chamber. You’ve got to do it purposefully. Nah, this defense stinks. I’m not buying it.
That reminds me so much of the hunters in South Park (Jimbo and Ned? It’s been a while since I’ve watched) who realized they could still hunt things they weren’t allowed to as long as they shouted “it’s coming right for us” before shooting.
I too have trouble believing that it’s possible to confuse a taser with a firearm. A bullet was chambered, as already mentioned at #8.
Let’s also take away their ability to use an air freshener as a reason to check for outstanding warrants. Other people can drive a car besides its owner. They too are arseholes, but they do manage to arrest truly dangerous people without murdering them “accidentally”.
Riot gear is another thing they don’t need. We have DEA specialists with plenty of riot gear and unmarked black vehicles.
Taser weighs 8oz, a glock weighs 21oz – loaded 32oz. Sure the cop was confused. Sure.
It’s another day ending in Y.
Goddammit, America, why do we keep allowing this to happen?
Besides, tasing someone for having an air freshener is not “standard procedure”
@8 She was probably carrying a Glock, so no external safety in the usual sense, and it’s kind of supposed to be carried with one in the chamber.
Still a buttload of cock, the entire situation. The cop doing routine stuff and needing a gun for whatever reason, the insane trigger-happiness, and the lame ‘It’s Tasers’ excuse.
@wzrd1
Not to mention that tasers are either yellow or have yellow parts whereas guns don’t. So, we’re looking at someone who is color blind as well.
An accident? Hmm, sure, maybe. Accidents do happen and sometimes they do cause the death of other people. Is it possible that this officer could draw their sidearm and mistake it for a taser? Yeah, sure, in a high-stress and confusing moment, it’s not entirely outside the realm of possibility.
But, that really just raises other serious concerns. Is it standard procedure to move around with a bullet chambered? Do they carry both the taser and the sidearm at the same side? And if not, why didn’t they know the difference?
There’s a whole host of other issues that raises some serious questions about the officer’s training and, frankly, state of mind.
So, plausible accident? Sure, I sort of doubt it. But even if, it still stinks all the way up to the moon!
Also, stopping someone for a fucking air freshener? What even the hell?
Is it standard procedure to move around with a bullet chambered?
Yes, because cops need to be prepared in case the gunfight at OK Corral breaks out. They might need that 1/10th of a second that they can’t be arsed to spend confirming their target or shouting a warning.
Hmmm. My comment seems to have moved a sentence between preview and post.
The DEA are the arseholes, not the random driver with an air freshener.
This is not an accident. An accident is when you unintentionally step on someone’s foot in a crowded elevator. Assuming for the sake of argument that the cop is telling the truth (lol), this is negligent homicide, aka manslaughter, and not an accident.
And if you believe that the cop confused the weight and feel of a taser for a handgun, I have a bridge to Brooklyn that I would like to sell you.
Marcus
That’s the thing. Yes it is. Standard written procedure is tasing anyone who does not show (immediate) compliance to their authority. That’s how the book is written. You (immediately) submit, or they are explicitly, by written standards and case law, in escalating the use of force as much as is necessary to ensure compliance. That is fucked up, and that’s one of the things that needs to change, aka the written standards of codes of conduct for cops. We need to remove the assumption that a cop is authorized to use as much force as is necessary to ensure compliance because it’s not justified to kill someone for an air freshener.
@ 19 GerrardOfTitanServer
Got any pictures of the bridge?
More will come out, but I suspect she thought she was using her taser. Otherwise it means she was so eager to kill him that she was willing to do it while wearing a body cam; knowing that she would almost certainly be fired and likely face a involuntary manslaughter charge. It would have been better for her to say she thought he was going for a gun. Probably would have get away with that.
This is not to excuse her. She deserves to be in jail.
Oh, don’t worry. Per Biden, we’ll give the cops “more training” — which means more money — and more military equipment (already measurably accelerating in the last few months) and that definitely will solve these problems. I’m sure the guy whose major legislative accomplishments include a crime bill which he literally admitted to the press was written by police unions is going to take a firm stand to solve this problem.
(I am equally sure that all the people who insist that Biden was an acceptable candidate and that we can force him left have a brilliant plan to make that happen in this context. Go ahead and share it, please.)
If we didn’t give the cops guns, there would be millions of people across the country completely devoid of thoughts and prayers.
Couldn’t have that.
I don’t know, and I’m a rank amateur, but if I had to guess, it was just negligent homicide aka manslaughter, and there was no preconceived intent, and that it was just the end result of 1- cop training which teaches cops that every traffic stop is a life-or-death situation where every driver is out to murder the cop, and 2- standard racist beliefs where all black men are violent. In other words, I’m betting that she stopped the car, ran the plates, saw the arrest warrant, saw it was a “big scary black man”, and therefore drew their gun, and approached the car in a state of near-panic. After the shooting, the cop realized that it probably wasn’t justified even by today’s ridiculously lax standards, and then used the go-to lie about mixing up the gun with the taser.
As I’ve said many times before, cops should not be permitted to carry any weapon until they’ve been on the job for 3 years and no firearms until they’ve been on the job 5 years. And that, of course, is before we reform the 2nd Amendment (or just repeal it) and put in place some serious statutory restrictions on gun ownership.
But on top of that, the taser should be worn on the dominant side unless and until a department makes the decision that a firearm is the weapon of first resort. While that may be true that a firearm is the de facto weapon of first resort an many LE agencies, none of them say that out loud at this point. Either they should own that’s what they’re doing, or the gun goes on the non-dominant side.
The incompetence displayed in that video is stunning, and it begins well before any weapon is drawn.
The officer who failed to cuff an unresisting man, that she thought she was going to help but only interfered with is where it started, and then an attitude that disobedience is permission to deploy violence is the next thing to go wrong.
And then the idea one can confuse a taser with a handgun? Exactly how many times had she handled either?
Her, her superiors and the administrators of her department are all guilty of manslaughter.
@24
She said taser taser prior to shooting. Does that change your opinion? As to you 1 and 2, I am sure you are right.
I don’t know. I want to give benefit of the doubt, but it is a cop after all that just killed someone in cold blood, and all cops are liars, so… I could easily believe that the cop shouted “taser” to help the cop’s defense at a later time. Kind of like shouting “stop resisting” as the cop beats the crap out of a non-resisting person.
Again, at minimum, according to the cop’s own confession, this is negligent homicide. I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t know enough about the different kinds of manslaughter vs murder charges to really comment further. Does it change something if the cop knew she had a gun in hand? Does that change the charge from manslaughter to a lesser degree of murder? Probably? I don’t know.
I will be captain obvious and say there are 2 reasons such shit happens all the time in USA.
1. you completely misuse the 2nd amendment (before “right to bear arms” is “well regulated militia”) so cops assume everyone has a gun
2. US law and government system is a creation of evil racist geniuses, who realized they won’t be able to be openly racist forever, so they designed system that is covertly racist – using the fact most black people were poor at the time, all you needed was to create the system where poor people stayed poor (even if “white thrash” will become collateral damage). That’s why racial economic disparities were lowering when universal programs were introduced (and why minimum wage increase would do more to racial justice than dozen of black faces in high places).
Back to the point – police is just the part of this system, designed to oppress instead of protect.
This is bullshit. It’s cop apologetics. More American cops are killed each year from mundane traffic accidents than are killed each year from guns. Being a trucker is a more dangerous job than being an American cop because truckers drive more miles per day than cops. The number of cops killed in ambush-style killings per year is IIRC a dozen or two per year. Stop making bullshit excuses for American cops.
Odd how many US states have a law against “driving while black” which is subject to capital punishment.
Oh, don’t worry. Per Biden, we’ll give the cops “more training”
Tase ’em. Then have them hold their breath for 9 min. Those that pass the exam can stay in the force.
“Accident” is always a curious rationalization for these things. It was no accident that the cop was carrying a gun. Based on what others have said, it was no accident that the gun was ready to fire. It was also no accident that the cop stopped the victim. The cop may have made a mistake, which was perhaps due to poor training. That’s no accident either.
If the gun wasn’t there (or the taser) in the first place then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Cops in 19 countries don’t routinely carry guns including the UK (except Northern Ireland), Ireland, Iceland, Norway, and New Zealand. They have low rates of deaths from guns both for police and the people they arrest.
This is a hammer-nail problem: When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Cops don’t need guns to deal with routine traffic problems. They also don’t need guns to handle most crime reports. Every time I’ve called the cops about a break-in they didn’t arrive until hours after the robbery so carrying a gun was just ridiculous.
They also don’t need guns to deal with mental health emergencies. I’ve been through one of those and the cops that answered the call were the wrong solution. They were nice enough to me, and they didn’t kill my son. Still, they did arrest him and throw him into a solitary holding tank for ten days while he was going through a mental breakdown.
I also believe this is an indirect consequence of the bullshit 2nd amendment. It is a systemic problem. These types of accidents do not happen in other countries at this rate but they are widespread in US.
American public is insanely armed, per capita at least a factor 4 more than the next major country. As a result, American cops are trained to deal both with mundane daily events and also highly dangerous situations involving assault rifles. It is impossible to have a large force of low income people and expect them to be able to function in that situation. There can be no solution to this situation unless the American public is disarmed.
To lotharloo
Again nonsense. We need to recognize the real underlying causes of America police brutality if we are to fix it, and it’s not because a couple dozen cops get shot and killed in ambushes each year. It’s the long history of slavery, racism, classism, authoritarianism. It’s the “war on crime” attitude that is pervasive in the public. It’s the harmful and false “thin blue line” belief that is pervasive in the public – this false belief that we must have militarized police to keep us safe from criminals (and black people). It’s extremely wide latitude in use of force that we grant by written law to police. It’s the near complete lack of accountability for police when they violate those already extremely generous use-of-force guidelines.
That there are so many armed people in America is an excuse that police use and the public uses to reinforce these many false narratives. It’s a very useful excuse, and so maybe doing away with it will do something to destroy these false narratives. However, these false narratives have much more life to them, and they won’t be so easily destroyed by getting rid of guns.
It’s hard to watch.
Allow me to bother you with a bit of statistics that got stuck in my head for some reason:
People killed by cops in 2016, per country:
In Japan: zero
In Italy: six
In Germany: twelve
In the US: one thousand and thirty.
This cannot go on.
yelling taser taser was clearly a masquerade threat. She is a 26 year veteran officer, and not some rookie easily confused.
The “oh I shoot him” was emotionless, hardly a proper reaction to an unexpected result of pulling the trigger.
One of the protestors on the street on Rachel Maddow pointed out that there is an obvious difference in weight between the two weapons. That she has experience with both.
Odd that legal experts are saying she cannot be charged with any crime under Minnesota laws.
@GerrardOfTitanServer
US is not the only country with a history of slavery, or imperialism, or colonialism. US is also not the only country struggling with racism or resurgence of rightwing extremism and/or fascism. FFS, even if you count only the white people shot by the police, US is a fucking outlier.
Strawman. You are ignoring the reality that police in US are trained to be like soldiers in a war zone which is a natural outcome of having a population that is obsessed with guns and armed to the teeth with unregistered weapons of war.
Here’s another way to simplify it for people who still don’t get it:
The number of white people killed by the police is roughly double the number of blacks which makes it clear African Americans are being disproportionately targeted by the police. But even the number of white people killed by the police per capita is at least an order of magnitude larger than many European countries.
So, apply the relevant explanation to the correct phenomenon:
The reason black people are being disproportionately killed by the police is due to racism/systemic racism.
The reason so many people are being killed by the police is because police are trained to consider any encounter with the civilians as having a potential for a deadly violence.
And the reason for #2 is that the American public is armed with weapons of war, 99% of them unregistered and untracked.
The cop shouting “Taser! Taser! Taser!” Before shooting him didn’t seem any different than when they shout “Stop resisting! Stop resisting!” while beating up handcuffed people laying on the ground.
Acab
She had been on the job there for twenty six years, and was president of the local police union.
Meanwhile, speaking of police unions, here in Boston MA
To lotharloo
I know you hate guns and gun rights, but don’t let that blind you to the real reasons. Again, look at the data on the number of American cops killed per year from being shot. It’s miniscule. Again, more die from mundane traffic accidents. Again, being a trucker is more dangerous than being an American cop because the trucker drives a lot more miles. The reason why American police shoot so many people has very little to do with gun rights, and everything to do with all of the issues that I named, only some of which you directly addressed. You are playing right into the cop’s hands by giving them a bad excuse for their bad behavior. Please stop.
Gerrard:
First and foremost, it doesn’t have to be an actual, justifiable risk — the perception suffices.
Second, pretty sure the cops will hold that the reason so few are shot is that they take care to assume anyone with whom they interact in the couse of their duties will be armed.
And you are playing right into the gun culture by asserting the 2nd has no significant effect on this issue.
John
Your attitude is why America has a policing problem. This asinine belief that being an American cop is a dangerous job. It’s not. I know that there have been studies on it, and most American cops fire their guns on the job (except training) in the entire course of their career.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/08/a-closer-look-at-police-officers-who-have-fired-their-weapon-on-duty/
I know that you don’t like gun rights, but it’s not “gun culture” to observe brute facts that being a cop is not an especially dangerous job. Being trucker, firefighter, fisher, etc., are all much more dangerous than being a cop.
Yes there is a perception that being an American cop is dangerous, but it’s not. We shouldn’t let false perceptions color our beliefs. I know and you know that many American cops will say that the stats are so low precisely because they have a hair trigger, but that’s just false. The stats that we have show conclusively that it is false.
The bigger problem is that you and lotharloo are sucking cop dick right now. Stop it please.
Sorry, missing a “not” in there.
Correction. Being an American cop is apparently more dangerous than being a firefighter. Again seemingly because firefighters drive less miles.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/01/08/most-dangerous-jobs-us-where-fatal-injuries-happen-most-often/38832907/
Gerrard, you’re not listening, but I shan’t repeat myself.
FWIW: I was a cop in Australia. We don’t shoot the people we’re sworn to protect.
John
You’re not listening. We shouldn’t let perceptions of risk allow cops to shoot other people unjustly. We can change that perception through proper education instead of blaming a boogeyman for our problems.
We’re very unlikely to get rid of guns anytime soon in America. I want to fix the real problems with American policing instead of blaming a (politically unfixable) boogeyman.
Being a cop in America is not especially dangerous. That is perhaps the cardinal sin from which follows most police brutality in America today. Bundled up into the notion that being a cop is dangerous is the racism, e.g. “inner city crime” and “gang crime”, but fundamentally many on the left are suffering from the same delusion that we’re mere seconds away from anarchy from criminals unless we empower our police to act like Judge Dredd.
Let me put it like this. I consider it plausible, even likely, that more unjust violence happens from police in America than from all non-police criminals in America. We do not have a criminal problem. We do not have a problem where criminals are killing police. We have a police problem. We have a problem where we as a society allow police to brutalize us because of the persistent and patently false myth that being an American cop is an especially dangerous job.
OK, I’ll belabour the point one more time. Last one, I promise.
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/article/258015
Point being, whether merited or not, that’s how a cop thinks in the USA.
—
You:
Sure. But, again — from a long time cop and now criminologist: “In Australia, police simply do not expect members of the community to be armed threats.”
In the USA, due to your allegedly politically unfixable circumstance, that’s just not the case. Results are predictable.
(I write ‘allegedly’, because if there’s one thing that’s fixable, it’s political stuff and perceptions.
Look at how nearly half of the USA now has legalised marijuana for recreational purposes, compared with how it was a generation or two ago)
Yes, and?
You’re just assuming or asserting by fiat that there is a simple cause and effect relationship. We’re just going in circles. Again, I can point to lots of evidence which shows that the fear is unfounded. We could change training and the legal system for misbehaving cops to change their behavior. Your rebuttal just seems to be “that’s impossible”.
“She just murdered a man “by accident””
– PZ, that’s grossly premature and irrresponsible of you pass judgement and accuse someone of murder without evidence and legal process. I feel that’s way out of line and should be retracted.
– you can condemn her actions and criticize until the cows come home, but this is beneath you
nurnord
Can’t tell if serious…
YES Gerrard, make your point
nurnord
Well, I’m just confused. What’s wrong about that? For example, is it wrong if I say that OJ Simpson is guilty, even though a court of law found otherwise? Let’s see if you can be consistent here.
I for one am in possession of enough evidence that I’m pretty damn sure OJ Simpson is guilty of those two murders, and I’m also in possession of more than enough evidence that this cop is guilty of negligent homicide aak manslaughter. She admitted to such, and the video clinches it. Whether it’s murder or not depends on the precise legal definitions of murder as it relates to intent and negligence, and I’m not equipped right now to answer that. However, the idea that she mistook her firearm for her taser is absolute bullocks.
Gerrard
“and I’m also in possession of more than enough evidence that this cop is guilty of negligent homicide aak manslaughter”
&
“Whether it’s murder or not depends on the precise legal definitions of murder as it relates to intent and negligence, and I’m not equipped right now to answer that”
So, from that do you agree it’s “grossly premature and irresponsible [of you] pass judgement and accuse someone of murder without evidence and legal process”
– you know, what I actually said !?
nurnord
I’ve tried to answer your questions. Would you please try to answer mine?
Let me say it again more clearly. I don’t need legal process to be able to reasonably conclude that someone is guilty of murder. Again I use the example of OJ Simpson.
Thus, to answer your question more explicitly, concluding that someone is guilty of murder before legal process has concluded is not automatically “grossly premature and irresponsible”.
Again, my question to you is: Do you think it’s (grossly) irresponsible to say that OJ Simpson is guilty of murder?
No, you did not address my point. My point was a comment on murder Now, you already responded with…
““and I’m also in possession of more than enough evidence that this cop is guilty of negligent homicide aak manslaughter”
&
“Whether it’s murder or not depends on the precise legal definitions of murder as it relates to intent and negligence, and I’m not equipped right now to answer that”
So, from that do you agree it’s “grossly premature and irresponsible [of you] to pass judgement and accuse someone of murder without evidence and legal process”
– you know, what I actually said !?
nurnord
I already answered your question in an extremely specific and explicit way in #57. I encourage you to learn how to read. You are also refusing to answer my question. If this doesn’t change, I don’t see any reason to engage with you any more.
Gerrard, your comments on this incident (Duane Wright) do not answer explicitly and directly what I asked. You stopped short of agreeing or disagreeing on the murder claim. You only spoke on manslaughter ; irrelevant to what PZ said and my point !
Your comments once again…
“and I’m also in possession of more than enough evidence that this cop is guilty of negligent homicide aak manslaughter”
&
“Whether it’s murder or not depends on the precise legal definitions of murder as it relates to intent and negligence, and I’m not equipped right now to answer that”
So,
“- I asked “So, from that do you agree it’s ‘grossly premature and irresponsible to pass judgement and accuse someone of MURDER without evidence and legal process’ ?
I’m happy to address your other incident, but an actual answer and conclusion on this is proper first.
In regard to this bit from no.57
“concluding that someone is guilty of murder before legal process has concluded is not automatically “grossly premature and irresponsible”
– irrelevant ! ‘automatically’ was NOT part of my point AT ALL
– I am specifically talking about this Duane Wright incident and am asking is it in this case !
Gerrard
You clearly missed no. 61 which addresses that (I did actually miss that point previously !)
No, that wasn’t your original assertion. But let’s move on to the new goalposts. Let’s look at Minnesota law.
https://www.keyserdefense.com/murder-vs-manslaughter-different-homicide-charges-in-minnesota/
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/murder-charges-in-minnesota-43141
Based on those brief descriptions, this sounds like third degree murder to me. Intent is not necessary. Only something like gross negligence or indifference to human life is required, and the cop’s actions fit.
The cop draws a firearm and supposedly mistake it for a taser, in a situation where even firing the taser is not justifiable. Add on the context with several decades of experience on the job, and many years of experience with both weapons. Sure seems like third degree murder to me.
And if I don’t buy her completely ridiculous story that she confused her taser and gun, then it’s easily second degree murder.
Gerrard POINT 1 of 5 (read bottom)
Oh, but it WAS my original assertion ! Both from me stating so in that response (that’s confirmation of my meaning), and by what is written in my original comment…
“She just murdered a man “by accident”
– PZ, that’s grossly premature and irrresponsible of you pass judgement and accuse someone of murder without evidence and legal process. I feel that’s way out of line and should be retracted.
– you can condemn her actions and criticize until the cows come home, but this is beneath you
1. I quoted PZ’s comment then replied to him
2. I then asked you for your opinion by QUOTING the ORIGINAL reply to PZ ! And that makes it ‘the original assertion’ to you also !
As before (ref. you asking about OJ), each point raised needs to be concluded before moving on. (not least because addressing multiple things at once is messy and things get overlooked. This point is now 1 of 5 to be concluded, the others are (I state them here as much to stop me forgetting as any other reason !)…
1. this
2. the Duane Wright incident…it is still grossly premature and irrresponsible of us to pass judgement and accuse someone of murder without evidence and legal process
3. as 2. but generalised to; regardless of how obvious an incident was (e.g. video footage of cop randomly shooting someone point blank in the head), it is still grossly premature and irrresponsible of us to pass judgement and accuse someone of murder without evidence and legal process
4. as 2. and 3. but for OJ
5. discussing Duane Wright again but in regard to personal opinion (not pronouncing criminal judgement publicly as PZ did) based on your links
So, this comment is only addressing what is stated above the =========== please, let’s conclude that before moving on to no. 2…
ffs ! There’s supposed to be =================================== after “2. I then asked you for your opinion by QUOTING the ORIGINAL reply to PZ ! And that makes it ‘the original assertion’ to you also !”
…to show that you’re only responding to the point ABOVE that ===============================
It is entirely reasonable to accuse people of murder based on video of the murder.
We do not need to wait until the cops are sentenced to call it murder, nor does acknowledging reality infringe on anyone’s rights to due process.
Tethys
“It is entirely reasonable to accuse people of murder based on video of the murder.”
1. So, what is it in the video that makes you deem it murder ?
The shooting and the resulting dead black man is all the evidence required to accuse the shooter of murder.
@GerrardOfTitanServer:
About guns and police, I don’t know why you are so defensive. I am not denying the impact of the factors you have listed. Systemic racism and racism have a huge impact on police violence on non-whites, war on drugs increases the number of police interactions with the people and causes more police shootings and increasing police training and trying to change the police culture will reduce the number of people killed by the police.
However, the point is that even if you try all of them, you are not going to anywhere close to the numbers in a lot of European countries. And the reason for it is that American public is obsessed with guns; the people police hires come from the same people, and sometimes the some of the worst of people the society has to offer. The problem is a cultural one, and you cannot fix it by some training. You cannot fix the culture of policing when the culture of the country itself is sick. It all goes back to the stupid obsession of Americans with guns, big guns.
Tethys Look more closely at what you said; the italics
“It is entirely reasonable to accuse people of murder based on video of the murder. ”
– “video of the murder” is deeming it as murder !
– and so when I asked “So, what is it in the video that makes you deem it murder ?”, that is the part I’m asking about !
Had you said “It is entirely reasonable to accuse people of murder based on video of the INCIDENT., that is different. But you declared it murder in those last 4 words. So…
– what is it in the video that makes you deem it murder ?
Nunord @71
I clearly bolded the word accuse in my last reply.
The lifeless body of Daunte is hard evidence of murder, regardless of intent.
Tethys
“I clearly bolded the word accuse in my last reply.”
– that doesn’t change the fact that the subsequent part DID deem it as murder ! The accuse part ONLY refers to the initial part. That’s not difficult to understand !
“The lifeless body of Daunte is hard evidence of murder, regardless of intent.”
– from your first comment, I knew this was your flaw.
– let’s go through it; is killing someone murder ? NO
– what is murder then ? Killing someone unlawfully
– but the video looks unlawful to me; ME TOO ! But, that still doesn’t necessarily mean murder ! Read below !
The above is also not difficult to understand, but let’s go on…
“regardless of intent”
– NONSENSE; a manslaughter charge is also applicable to unintended killing as well as in 3rd degree murder
– a lot of factors, information, evidence etc. and interpretation by a jury all feed into what the verdict will be; murder is far from being certain nor the only possible outcome
I say again; “She just murdered a man “by accident””
– PZ, that’s grossly premature and irresponsible of you to pass judgement and accuse someone of murder without evidence and legal process. I feel that’s way out of line and should be retracted.
– you can condemn her actions and criticize until the cows come home, but this is beneath you
Pish-posh, I’ve no interest in debating if Daunte was gunned down by a cop. He is dead for no other reason, and any other person other than a cop would already be in jail for murder.
It’s on video, and she admits she shot him.
Any of the other points raised are only a matter of degree, and are the domain of the lawyers and courts.
Tethys Look’s like your being deflective and dismissive, knowing you’re wrong ! But I’ll go through this mess anyway…
“I’ve no interest in debating if Daunte was gunned down by a cop”
– can you not read and understand words ? At no point did I suggest she didn’t shoot him dead ! That’s irrelevant.
“He is dead for no other reason”
– YES, that’s obvious and uncontested !
“and any other person other than a cop would already be in jail for murder”
– I just outlined why murder is not the only possible charge; wanton ignorance
It’s on video, and she admits she shot him.
– YES, irrelevant
“Any of the other points raised are only a matter of degree, and are the domain of the lawyers and courts.”
– WRONG, manslaughter has scope outside of murder and that part is NOT therefore a degree
– So, it’s for the courts to decide if it’s murder OR NOT, not just what degrees of murder
nurnord: try writing in your original language, since it seems like English is not it. (Also, get straight to the point.) That may be easier than trying to make sense of your comments (currently 13 of them).
@GerrardOfTitanServer 44
“The bigger problem is that you and lotharloo are sucking cop dick right now. Stop it please.”
How about you find something more objective than fallatio as insult? I find that homophobic.
consciousness razor
“nurnord: try writing in your original language, since it seems like English is not it”
– give example(s) !
“(Also, get straight to the point.) That may be easier than trying to make sense of your comments (currently 13 of them).”
– perhaps your inability to interpret text made you overlook the fact I’m responding to crap from others, point by point !
And speaking of points, do you have anything of worth ?
Wow. This is like The Olde Days.
There is no meaningful difference between the phrase “gunned down by a cop” and “murdered by cop…accidentally” for Daunte.
nunord’s attempting to play Schrodinger’s murder victim.
Cops are trained in urban combat to the point of PTSD. She may have thought she had grabbed her taser, she may have intended to draw her taser, but all her training and muscle memory would have her draw her gun on reflex. Cops are not trained to draw their taser.
To nurnord
I, and everyone else here, cannot understand what you’re saying. There’s a couple things you could do to fix this.
First, please learn to use the quote functionality. This is how you do it:
>what someone else wrote goes here
Your response goes here
On this particular blog, when you write a comment like that and post it, it will look like the following:
Your response goes here
Also, please use the “Preview” button before the “Post Comment” button to make sure it looks like what you want it to look like.
Also, please do more work please on reviewing the actual English contents of your post before hitting submit to make sure that it makes sense, and that it is understandable from the other person. If you could do those two things, that would be great.
On to your point. Because no one can understand what you’re saying, I can just repeat myself. I believe that I am in possession of enough evidence to conclude that the cop either killed the person, with their gun, either accidentally or intentionally, and to conclude that according to my brief reading of the laws of Minnesota, according to the specific facts of the case, it is murder. The big open questions in my mind is whether it’s first, second, or third degree murder.
To lotharloo
Why am I “obsessed”? Because I know you’re wrong, and because I want to fix the problem of police brutality instead of lament that the problem is unfixable because of an underlying unfixable boogeyman. It seems neither of us have anything additional of substance to add.
…
To Brony
Yea. I regretted writing that soon after I hit post. Sorry.
…
AlanMac in 81
That’s quite plausible. I can’t tell if it’s that, or if the cop grabbed knowingly grabbed the gun. Either way it’s such gross negligence that it’s at least voluntary manslaughter, and probably third degree murder, IMAO, but I am a rank amateur, and I welcome corrections from someone more knowledge about the minutae of the law.
nurnord, #78:
You gave them, because they are your comments, and those are the things I’m talking about. I don’t have other kinds of examples, if that’s what you wanted.
Not much at the moment, but here are a few:
1. Like periods and commas, question marks and exclamation points should not have a space inserted before them. Do you believe they should? You are incorrect!
2. I think the cop is guilty of murder.
3. I can express point #2 clearly and straightforwardly, without the need for some badly-formatted quote from another comment by somebody else, because it is just a thing which I think that can easily be said in a single, short sentence.
GerrardOfTitanServer @various
As an outsider it seems to me to be obvious that both racism and gun culture are causes. This is real life, things very rarely have one simple cause.
Jazzlet
I agree. It’s a difference of relative proportions. And it seems that if we assign most or all of the blame to an unfixable problem (widespread gun ownership) and if we’re wrong, then we won’t fix the fixable problem (police violence).
I feel like arguing over whether it was technically murder misses the point. If it was intentional, it was an unspeakable act; if it was unintentional, then walking around with a gun despite not being able to tell it from a taser amounts to more or less the same thing morally. I suspect it wasn’t Voltaire who said “I prefer rogues to imbeciles, because rogues sometimes rest”, but it’s true nonetheless.
Gerrard:
Do you literally mean “unfixable” here, as in it actually can/cannot happen? That doesn’t sound right. Don’t you mean something more like “I would not complain all the time if people wanted to fix this problem, because it’s something that I am likewise willing to do”?
What if anything is wrong with the following statements?
It can be the case that gun ownership becomes much less widespread in the US, and this could be accomplished in many different ways. This is demonstrably the case, given the examples of lots of other countries around the world.
Police violence has been a serious problem in this country for an extremely long time, without us ever fixing it. Given that, our “ability” to fix it (if this is how you’re going to frame things) is questionable at best.
CR @88
It’s both. They’re both problems. They’re both fixable. The one by removing guns from civilian ownership, and the other by disarming and re-training the police.
consciousness razor
I meant to make the points:
We can solve the problem of police brutality and excessive violence without needing to solve the problem of widespread gun ownership.
We should fix the problem of police brutality and excessive violence without waiting for a solution to the problem of widespread gun ownership.
Fixing the problem of widespread gun ownership is politically difficult for the obvious and well-known insufficient amount of support about SCOTUS and state legislatures, and this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
It is foolish to wait for a fix to the problem of widespread gun ownership before beginning to tackle the problem of police brutality and excessive violence.
I agree in this sense. Like the problem of widespread gun ownership, the problem of police brutality and excessive violence is primarily a political problem. The policy fixes to fix the problem are well known (IMAO), but they are unlikely to be adopted because they don’t have popular support – just like the policy fixes to the problem of gun ownership are well known, but they are unlikely to be adopted because they don’t have the right kind of support in the politically relevant areas.
Having said that, I think that American people are more willing to adopt some of the necessary proposals for fixing police brutality and excessive violence compared to greatly reducing gun ownership rates.
This is foolish. This is not a solution. Any real solution must be based on personal accountability for cops in civil and criminal court. With just that one change, the cops themselves would change their training for their own benefit.
This wrongheaded fixation on “training” completely misses the fundamental problem. No amount of additional training is going to fix this problem when the structural problem of “complete lack of personal accountability” is in place. No amount of training is going to make these bullies not be bullies. These cops are bullies, and they can get away with violence, and that will not change as long as they can escape personal consequences for their violence.
Having said that, mandating certain changes to training, and mandating disarming of police, in conjunction with introduction of personal civil and criminal liability for police, is much better than just the introduction of personal civil and criminal liability for police.
Gerrard, #90:
Would that sufficiently solve it though?
Lots of cops are brutal and excessively violent, and it just so happens to be the case that these same cops also privately own lots of guns (for penile enhancement purposes only) and are much more likely to be gun owners than the broader population.
I don’t think I can buy it that they see their gun violence as both a part of their birthright — a casual thing for fun and games, to be used whenever they fucking feel like it and with no further justification necessary — while it’s also something that must remain a last resort for self-defense in extremely limited circumstances due to their chosen career.
We should also fix the problem of widespread gun ownership without waiting for a solution to the problem of police brutality and excessive violence. So?
If you meant politically difficult, then why did it start out as impossible?
Nobody said anything about waiting. Who’s the fool? You’re the first to bring it up, as far as I can tell.
Now, a lesser claim you want to make above is that “we don’t need to do it”…. That is, it’s unnecessary to solve the specific problem that you’ve recognized as a problem. However, much better gun control is something we need, so you can’t even really say that much.
I don’t know how accurate that is.
They don’t have much support among politicians. Those politicians and their wealthy benefactors don’t tend to give a shit, presumably because they don’t personally face much of the carnage themselves. Anyway, they’re running things, and if you thought that was done by all of us, you’re unfortunately mistaken.
Yes. Why are you asking me questions about things which I’ve already made abundantly clear?
That point wasn’t addressed to you. You butted into another conversation, and apparently didn’t bother to understand the context. The context was someone else saying that we cannot solve the problem of police violence without first getting rid of guns from the general population.
I spoke imprecisely. Sue me.
Sigh. See lotharloo in 34 where they said it quite explicitly: “There can be no solution to this situation unless the American public is disarmed.”
You’re mistaken. See:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2019/08/22/what-americans-really-think-about-mass-shootings-and-gun-legislation/
Gerrard:
It’s not abundantly clear to me. Maybe you’ll get an answer to this question, by reading and thinking of a coherent response to what I said right after the bit you quoted, since you seem to have ignored that.
Nope.
It will not be a solution which satisfies lotharloo, unless A. (Very simple. It can’t very easily be mangled without doing so intentionally.)
That is not even close to “waiting to do B, until a later time when we have completed A.”
I’m going to assume you’re able to comprehend the idea that we must do both A and B, because neither one is optional. Even if you yourself have a contradicting idea, it is nonetheless something that you can entertain in your mind and speak about honestly.
So … what’s the confusion about? Is it just that you “spoke imprecisely” again?
Tethys
“There is no meaningful difference between the phrase “gunned down by a cop” and “murdered by cop…accidentally” for Daunte.”
– I’ve laboured this point for you already specifically in regard to the Duane Wright incident. I’ve stated the shooting may be within the scope of manslaughter, and if it is, that’s a meaningful difference to ithe shooting being murder
Respond with something substantive and not the same nonsense or that’s the end of my responses.
consciousness razor
Sorry. I still read lotharloo as saying “disarming the American public is a hard requirement to solving the problem of Americna police brutality”. I still think that claim as I’ve interpreted it is wrong. I still think that it’s counterproductive to make this claim because we can and should be trying to fix the problem in ways other than disarming the American public because of the political difficulties with trying to disarm the American public.
nurnord
If you believe the cop really grabbed the gun thinking it was a taser, it might be manslaughter. There’s still an argument for murder third-degree, even granting that it was an “accident”. However, assuming the cop is lying about that, and the cop almost certainly is lying about that – the idea of confusing a taser and a handgun is ridiculous – then it’s murder, and the real question is which degree of murder.
Nunord
Oh please do fuck off. I’ve already told you that I will not indulge your need to call murder by another name.
The cop is in jail. The charges are at the discretion of the county attorney.
Gerrard
I appreciate the tips for formatting here !
I don’t think any of it needs reviewing/improvement to allow proper understanding, formatting yes. Perhaps give an example and we can dissect it !
I’ve stated already to another commenter; her shooting him is uncontested and irrelevant. That has nothing to do with anything I’ve written. Her shooting him is not on its own murder, hopefully you recognise that.
Well, I’m going on what I see in the vid. If it is determined to be accidental and unintended (as in firing her gun instead of a taser), there may be grounds for a negligence verdict that falls within the scope of involuntary manslaughter.
As I stated above (unless you have access to pertinent information other than what the vid shows ?), her actions may fall within the scope of manslaughter. I don’t see how it is necessarily a degree of murder.
Moreover, in regard to any incident, I think regardless of how clear cut the verdict will be murder, it is still grossly premature and irresponsible to pass that judgement publicly, as PZ did. All facts and evidence must be considered, and within due legal process.
To nurnord
You keep making argument “we should wait until the trial is done before coming to a conclusion” as though it’s a general argument, and yet when I pressed you on it, you said that it was specific to this case. Which is it? You keep going back and forth as far as I can tell, switching depending on whether it’s convenient or not.
Is it always inappropriate to make declarations of guilt without the results or a trial? Or not? Is it ok for me to say that OJ Simpson is definitely guilty of murder even though he was found “not guilty” at trial?
I mostly agree that under the cop’s (ridiculous) version of events, it could be manslaughter. I simply refuse to believe that the cop somehow confused a gun with a taser.
consciousness razor
nurnord, #78:
– no examples given, oh well
For these 2 examples, that’s not knowing how to format italics and bold properly. Probably different here, but on YouTube (for example), if you don’t leave a space after the bold command, it doesn’t execute it.
– An example; if I want to write; that’s not murder, it’s manslaughter…but I want murder to be in italics. On YT you have to write it as; that’s not murder , it’s manslaughter. If there’s no space between the second command symbol and the comma, it fails to execute the italics. Now, in the process of explaining this, I see it does not matter here !
I know they should ! <— But as I just did, in an informal setting such as this comment section, I simply prefer how it appears ! I know they should! just looks wrong to me, even though I’m aware spaces are nonstandard and considered incorrect by some camps.
Go on !
Gerrard
At last ! You now see why murder is not the only possible verdict ! However, it’s not about what I think, it’s about that being grounds for her defense and a resultant manslaughter verdict, not murder.
That’s why I wrote my comment to PZ…
Tethys
No, you stubbornly refuse to engage with me saying it may not be murder.
Regardless, you’ve crossed a line here; last comment to you.
Gerrard
Nonsense, I stated that view in regard to both Duane Wright and a generalised case. But I’ll state it here so it’s loud and clear. For Duane Wright AND ANY criminal case I think it is irresponsible to publicly declare murder in the manner PZ did (i.e. announcing it in an an internet blog post). PZ is not aware of all the relevant info pertaining to a verdict and so declaring murder is inappropriate
I think distinction can be made between public announcement on the scale of PZ’s and discussing it among friends/family and what have you. Surely you can see that a university professor with a public profile and blog declaring murder in a police incident is inappropriate ?
Apples and oranges; that’s post-trial, fair game. And it’s not public declaration anyway, as PZ’s was. I’ll now address your mention of OJ; I’m not at all familiar with it so I can’t comment a word !
First, you’re presuming to know her version. I only commented on what may be grounds for a defense amounting to nothing beyond involuntary manslaughter.
Look, I find it a bit lame too; pulling a gun over a taser and firing it is a proper mess up indeed !. But, the defense could go along the lines of;
a highly charged scenario with her mind racing, she reaches for the wrong item…
the feel of the gun and taser in ones hand and other tactile characteristics may be quite similar (I don’t know how plausible that is, would need to see them to know if by feel alone, under that stressful scenario they could be mistaken)
with her eyes fixed on Wright, drawing a taser by feel alone may be difficult to tell apart from her gun…bang, shot goes out…too late
NURNORD, we are allowed our opinions on the case. We don’t have to agree with you, and in fact most commenters disagree with you. You are merely trolling as evidenced by your repeated posts saying the same bullshit. You have had your say. Time to go away. Engage kill-file.
NURNORD,
yes…
Indeed & irrelevant
no, I’m stating my views. And if it’s bullshit, make your point, not a useless driveby.
Nerd (posting again as I forgot to put your name in)
yes…
Indeed & irrelevant
no, I’m stating my views and replying to others. And if it’s bullshit, make your point, not a useless driveby.
We have the video. We have the confession to manslaughter / murder three. Do you really think that there’s any other relevant information? I don’t. We may disagree about the proper charge, but we probably do have all of the relevant factual information about the case.
Gerrard
This is a naive point. I’ve watched all the George Floyd trial footage to date. What you don’t get from the video is the drugs tablets left in the back of the police car that have played a prominent role in the case of Chauvin’s defence. Coming back to DW, I’ve already outlined possible grounds for defence regarding the similar tactile feel of gun and taser; a video does not show such information ! The broader point being; video footage is important, but you can never say it is all-important, evidence and relevant info not seen on film cannot be ruled out. On this alone PZ is not aware of all the relevant info pertaining to a verdict, nor are we.
The footage alone is grounds for disagreement ! And I’ve already addressed the rest.
The Vicar@22,
Yes, it was obviously Biden who actually murdered Daunte Wright. And of course everyone who voted for him – death penalty for them too.
That doesn’t matter for discussions that grant the defense’s argument. It’s still at least involuntary manslaughter or murder three, and that detail IMO doesn’t change the correct charge. The gun and taser could be virtually identical and it wouldn’t matter. Meaning that this detail is still pretty irrelevant to determine if a murder three charge applies.
On the other hand, if we start questioning the defense’s argument, then this detail becomes much more relevant. While this information is not in the video, it is readily available. It’s not like we need to wait for trial to learn about this. This detail was already heavily under discussion. This is also something we already know.
Chauvin’s defense is a sham. I cannot take you seriously if you are citing that defense seriously. Chauvin is undeniably guilty of murder two. The open question is whether Chauvin did it because he had prior history with the victim, which would upgrade it to murder one. The victim could have been high as a kite, but it would not matter. It would not matter for two distinct reasons, either good enough on their own.
First is the eggshell skull principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull
In short, it’s the legal principle (with criminal law equivalent) that if someone’s unlawful action lead to a more severe outcome than might be typically expected, then the perpetrator is still typically criminally responsible for the more severe outcome. It gets complicated when we bring in mens rea for criminal cases, and that’s why we have lawyers. However, Chauvin willingly, knowingly, intentionally used potentially lethal force in an unlawful way, and it resulted in someone’s death, which means it’s clearly murder two. (Again, it would be murder one if they could show that Chauvin planned this in the minutes leading up to the attack because of his prior history with the victim.)
Second, he sat on his fucking neck for over 2 minutes after he fell unconscious with IIRC a fucking nurse in uniform explaining how the person is dying. There is no fucking excuse for that. This clearly satisfies any mens rea requirements.
Given these facts, there is no doubt in my mind, and it wouldn’t matter on iota if the victim was hopped up on whatever drugs.
Tangent: The other three cops are also guilty of murder two. I want the book thrown at the lot of them. Preemptively – “I was just following orders” is not a lawful excuse. The cops could have just walked away, but like the Nazi prison guard, they stayed and defended the murderer in progress, making them accessories to murder aka guilty of murder themselves.
And monkeys might fly out of my ass. Yes, we afford this opportunity to accused as a matter of legal course, but I can also sit here and estimate the odds that any such evidence will be found, and it’s basically indistinguishable from zero in this case. We need to afford that opportunity in this case even though the chance is basically zero because we need to uphold the rule of law to make sure that the next accused has the same opportunity where it might actually help them.
Bringing it back, I cannot imagine any remotely plausible evidence that shows this cop, in this case of the OP, is not guilty of involuntary manslaughter, and I cannot think offhand of any factual evidence that would matter when deciding between a murder three charge and a manslaughter charge. The only unknowns in my mind are legal questions about the law, and not factual questions specific to the case, including the feel of a taser vs a handgun.
Gerrard
So there’s no argument then ! If you agree i.m. is possible, you already tacitly agree PZ was wrong to declare murder !
As to your long explication on Chauvin’s case, the specifics and nuances there do not diminish my general point regarding video footage relevant to a criminal act. Footage alone may or may not have significant impact on a verdict. The point being (coming back to DW now) declaring murder is premature and irresponsible from the footage alone. What is difficult about accepting that ?! I’m actually going to mention my opinion on Chauvin at bottom…
On the other cops, I haven’t gave much thought to what they might face, without even giving it a moments’ further thought, I’m surprised to see you state they may (all 3) face murder II as well. Even Tou Thao, the one stood facing the bystanders. Well, I’m far from an expert on such things, I suppose.
Chauvin
I’ve watched all of the court case on YT (NBC’s posts), day 1-14 (15 I can’t find at the moment). If you go to NBC’s uploads, you’ll see a ‘Michael Anderson’ (me) has posted the following on all their uploads…(note; I don’t know the bold command here, so it’s italics instead)…
Talk about this background info showing what way the wind is blowing ! I’m convinced he held Floyd down out of prejudice and malice, on pretense of official police procedure in his arrest. He knew and was aware for all 9 mins 29 secs what he was doing. And yes, he should be convicted on the highest possible charges applicable.
Again, if I was a better legal expert to know the difference between murder three and involuntary manslaughter, the video would be enough for me to decide. I don’t need to know more about the case. The video plus confession has almost everything that I need to know to decide between those two charges under a working assumption that the confession was truthful (lol). It is entirely possible that others are better versed in the law and they can properly conclude that murder three applies.
Or they can be like me and disbelieve the ridiculous explanation that the cop confused gun and taser, which leaves murder two as the obvious choice.
And there it is. You don’t know, even on the limited grounds of going only off what the video shows. And ’til the cows come home, I’ll maintain; going off visual information alone is often insufficient to arrive at the appropriate conclusion.
PZ doesn’t know and shouldn’t have pronounced as such.
Damn me you’re thick. You’re not even trying to read and understand my points. I can just say: read it again, and respond to what I actually said, because I preemptively rebuttred your point, and you could at least pretend to address my specific points.
Gerrard
No need to resort to mudslinging, is there ?!
You stated you don’t know what verdict applies and I addressed that.
Gerrard
So then, for all your smugness in our exchanges, together with these 2 comments of yours…
…guess what charge is the ONLY one brought in the Daunte Wright incident ?…
“second degree manslaughter” !
I REPEAT;
Tethys
So then, for all your smugness in our exchanges, together with these 5 comments of yours…
…guess what charge is the ONLY one brought in the Daunte Wright incident ?…
“second degree manslaughter” !
I REPEAT;
nunord@118,
Of course, it’s completely unheard-of for American police officers who have shot black people dead to be charged (if at all) with an offence assigning the lowest possible degree of misbehaviour.
KG
You’ve forced me to search my mental phrase thesaurus; neither here nor there, grasping at straws, beside the point.