Amir Locke

[UCFKnight85]

But the innocent person being killed is the issue. Police have to know that there is a strong possibility when they bust into a home, that more people than just the person they are looking for could be in the home.

SWAT teams train for that and train often for that. They execute these throughout the year and you never hear of any complications until something like this happens.

Ultimately this practice is probably due for some review, but it's also not just the cops "executing" a black person like the original story pinned it as. It's a tragic accident whereby police executed a lawful warrant and lawful entry of the premise of someone wanted for murder, his cousin happened to be there instead, and drew a weapon on police during the entry. Like I said, really tragic accident.

 

[UCFBS]

I'm all for constant review of policing policies. But the real way to eliminate these cases is to change the subculture of criminality that is pervasive in our society.

That's the other half, yes. No argument. It's why gun control doesn't work. It's the realities that lead people to crime that are the problem. But ...

The guy was sleeping on the couch before getting murdered. There was no criminality involved.

Have to 100% agree with chemmie here. And this wasn't some mass murder charge or some major organized crime raid ... it was posession-level.

WTF do we have no-knock raids for this?! That's what I meant by resetting police procedure, and making them justify any such use ... of which, there was no justification in this case.

"Oh, but, but, but ... they might flush it down the toilet!" I'm no ... for the small amounts, that's no a valid argument at all. I'm tired of that argument being made.

Civil Rights are being violated by standard police procedures that should have never become the norm. It's time to reverse 40+ years of this by literally outlawing them, and forcing a re-justification of such.

This is a classic case where there is never such justification.

 

[sk8knight]

But the innocent person being killed is the issue. Police have to know that there is a strong possibility when they bust into a home, that more people than just the person they are looking for could be in the home.

Put yourself in any of those officer's shoes and tell me what you do?

 

[Cubs79]

Put yourself in any of those officer's shoes and tell me what you do?

FIrst off I would have knocked first, but this isnt really the point. The point is that a system where innocent people can be killed in their homes by agents of the state, isnt a just system and needs to change.

 

[Cubs79]

SWAT teams train for that and train often for that. They execute these throughout the year and you never hear of any complications until something like this happens.

Ultimately this practice is probably due for some review, but it's also not just the cops "executing" a black person like the original story pinned it as. It's a tragic accident whereby police executed a lawful warrant and lawful entry of the premise of someone wanted for murder, his cousin happened to be there instead, and drew a weapon on police during the entry. Like I said, really tragic accident.

But they did execute a black person. You can say that wasnst their intent but that doesnt change what happened.

 

[UCFBS]

Put yourself in any of those officer's shoes and tell me what you do?

Which is why it's a problem with police procedure. And it's time we end that problem. The militariziation of police, and defense of it, has been the biggest issue.

SWAT with MRAPs and other vehicles is purposely designed to give domestic capability to put down insurrections by the people, just like in Iraq.

This isn't even a left-right thing any more, and I'm tired of both sides using various justifications for various, standard, police procedures.

Republicans are gaining African-American and other voters for a reason, not losing. They'd gain a lot more if they would embrace a reversal of police procedures, and realize it's not the police themselves.

Because Democrats are now arguing the police state far more, instead of just supporting police, like the Republicans attempt to.

 

[sk8knight]

But they did execute a black person. You can say that wasnst their intent but that doesnt change what happened.

They didn’t “execute” anybody. They performed a legal entry and were confronted by a deadly threat and responded. Amir was legally in a residence and was confronted with a deadly threat, albeit one that announced their presence as police, and responded. They both acted legally and it was a tragic occurrence. There was no execution.

 

[sk8knight]

Which is why it's a problem with police procedure. And it's time we end that problem. The militariziation of police, and defense of it, has been the biggest issue.

SWAT with MRAPs and other vehicles is purposely designed to give domestic capability to put down insurrections by the people, just like in Iraq.

This isn't even a left-right thing any more, and I'm tired of both sides using various justifications for various, standard, police procedures.

Republicans are gaining African-American and other voters for a reason, not losing.

I agree with looking at the procedure. I don’t agree that there is some advance of power here that wasn’t true going back decades. Nor some persecution of black people because of their race.

 

[Cubs79]

They didn’t “execute” anybody. They performed a legal entry and were confronted by a deadly threat and responded. Amir was legally in a residence and was confronted with a deadly threat, albeit one that announced their presence as police, and responded. They both acted legally and it was a tragic occurrence. There was no execution.

Semantics. They killed an innocent person who was doing nothing but sleeping on the couch when they busted in.

 

[UCFBS]

They didn’t “execute” anybody. They performed a legal entry

That should never be justified as a legal entry! That's the problem right there!

and were confronted by a deadly threat and responded. Amir was legally in a residence and was confronted with a deadly threat, albeit one that announced their presence as police, and responded.

Do you know how many criminals announce themselves in such a way too ... guns brandished and blazing?!

This needs to end.

They both acted legally and it was a tragic occurrence. There was no execution.

It's an execution because of the civil rights violation as standard police procedure as an unjustified action.

It's time we call that out, not the police, but police procedure, the normalicy of no knock raids and violation of civil liberties for no justified public benefit.

Every reduction or violation of civil rights requires a strongly justified, public benfit ... and it should be a very tall order. This does not, never has in the case of simple posession too.

Exactly why most states who pass gun control laws get lambasted by their state Supreme Courts when they refuse to release statistics that are grossly unfavorable to the argument.

The Courts get really pissed, and will even sanction leaders, when they purposely cover up the fact that laws that tear down Civil Rights aren't working.

This is what burns up us Libertarians, because the left-right keep justifying the reduction or elimination of Civil Rights with very piss-poor, or worse yet, even undermining statistics that they don't want released.

Add in all the MRAP vehicles, small and even medium caliber weapons, and expanded SWAT tactics with expanded statism, that have only increased in the 21st century, and ... we're looking at the future of 'police procedure' in this country.

Don't support it, don't defend it. Amir was executed by the state, negligently but, ultimately, willfully ... knowing this would happen, and does too often.

 

[sk8knight]

Semantics. They killed an innocent person who was doing nothing but sleeping on the couch when they busted in.

I knew that was going to be your response. You use inflammatory rhetoric often and then try to wave it off as semantics every time you’re called out on it. Words have meaning, especially when addressing legal concepts. Calling it an execution paints the officers as executioners and that is wrong, unfair, divisive, and destructive.

I agree with addressing the need and use of no-knock warrants.

His family is going to get a nice settlement from MPD. As they should.

 

[Cubs79]

They didn’t “execute” anybody. They performed a legal entry and were confronted by a deadly threat and responded. Amir was legally in a residence and was confronted with a deadly threat, albeit one that announced their presence as police, and responded. They both acted legally and it was a tragic occurrence. There was no execution.

How can both of these be considered legal? It shouldnt legal to shoot someone, in a private residence, who posed no threat to them. And if the gun he had was legal and registered, which his mom says it was (obviously we will see if that is true), then killing that person most certainly shouldnt be legal. We cant have this both ways, where it is legal to carry a gun, but also legal for a cop to shoot you for carrying a gun. It is a completely f'd up system.

 

[sk8knight]

That should never be justified as a legal entry! That's the problem right there!


Do you know how many criminals announce themselves in such a way too ... guns brandished and blazing?!

This needs to end.


It's an execution because of the civil rights violation as standard police procedure as an unjustified action.

It's time we call that out, not the police, but police procedure, the normalicy of no knock raids and violation of civil liberties for no justified public benefit.

Every reduction or violation of civil rights requires a strongly justified, public benfit ... and it should be a very tall order. This does not, never has in the case of simple posession too.

Exactly why most states who pass gun control laws get lambasted by their state Supreme Courts when they refuse to release statistics that are grossly unfavorable to the argument.

The Courts get really pissed, and will even sanction leaders, when they purposely cover up the fact that laws that tear down Civil Rights aren't working.

This is what burns up us Libertarians, because the left-right keep justifying the reduction or elimination of Civil Rights with very piss-poor, or worse yet, even undermining statistics that they don't want released.

Add in all the MRAP vehicles, small and even medium caliber weapons, and expanded SWAT tactics with expanded statism, that have only increased in the 21st century, and ... we're looking at the future of 'police procedure' in this country.

Don't support it, don't defend it. Amir was executed by the state, negligently but, ultimately, willfully ... knowing this would happen, and does too often.

Tell me why it shouldn’t have been justified as a legal entry before you build the rest of an argument on a poor foundation.

When they guy was shot at Wendy’s a bunch of people said “why don’t we just let him go home and get him later?” What do you think that looks like?

 

[Cubs79]

I knew that was going to be your response. You use inflammatory rhetoric often and then try to wave it off as semantics every time you’re called out on it. Words have meaning, especially when addressing legal concepts. Calling it an execution paints the officers as executioners and that is wrong, unfair, divisive, and destructive.

I agree with addressing the need and use of no-knock warrants.

His family is going to get a nice settlement from MPD. As they should.

And the cops who killed someone in his own home? You think they should rot in prison? Or do you just expect tax payers to keep paying for the mistakes that police make?

 

[UCFBS]

Semantics. They killed an innocent person who was doing nothing but sleeping on the couch when they busted in.

I knew that was going to be your response. You use inflammatory rhetoric ...

And yet, @Cubs79 is still stating the real truth.

The key is to stop looking at it as 'inflammatory' towards police, but recognize the much bigger, obviousness of the truth ...

It's a systemic issue with the expanded statism we're now under, to not only see this level of standard 'police procedure' competely unjustified for the alleged crime/perp, but to see people yourself defnding the system.

They have the full justification to do it to you as well ... all of us.

Calling it an execution paints the officers as executioners and that is wrong, unfair, divisive, and destructive.

No, it calls the system out ... the police are just the instrument. Just like blaming soldiers for wars and what happens in them, because of the Rules of Engagement (RoE), is the same level of bullsh-- too.

Stop calling for the execution of people with the government's guns. That's what you're doing. You're condoning it.

I agree with addressing the need and use of no-knock warrants.
His family is going to get a nice settlement from MPD. As they should.

That's not making them whole. Making them whole is to outlaw no knock warrants, period. Let them be rejustified.

At some point in the future, I see myself moving to any state that literally resets their entire code. Because it's going to get ugly.

 

[Knight In TN]

How can both of these be considered legal? It shouldnt legal to shoot someone, in a private residence, who posed no threat to them. And if the gun he had was legal and registered, which his mom says it was (obviously we will see if that is true), then killing that person most certainly shouldnt be legal. We cant have this both ways, where it is legal to carry a gun, but also legal for a cop to shoot you for carrying a gun. It is a completely f'd up system.

I’ve already stated where I stand on ridiculous no-knock warrants. But let’s not act like “posed no threat to them” applies here.

The practice of no-knock warrants creates opportunities for both police and citizens to be acting completely legally and suddenly both posing serious threats to each other. That level of risk is unacceptable.

 

[sk8knight]

How can both of these be considered legal? It shouldnt legal to shoot someone, in a private residence, who posed no threat to them. And if the gun he had was legal and registered, which his mom says it was (obviously we will see if that is true), then killing that person most certainly shouldnt be legal. We cant have this both ways, where it is legal to carry a gun, but also legal for a cop to shoot you for carrying a gun. It is a completely f'd up system.

But he did pose a threat when they identified themselves as police officers and he presented a gun at them. You can’t brandish a gun at a law enforcement officer legally acting in their job. Period.

You have to look at it from both perspectives. Which is something that you haven’t done yet. Is he guilty of a crime? Probably not given that it’s probably reasonable that a person would respond to someone crashing in your door as a lethal threat. But from the officer’s perspective, they legally entered the residence and he started pointing a gun at them. So a reasonable officer would see that as a deadly threat. Given the little we know now, you can make the case that both parties acted reasonably in the circumstance.

 

[sk8knight]

And yet, @Cubs79 is still stating the real truth.

The key is to stop looking at it as 'inflammatory' towards police, but recognize the much bigger, obviousness of the truth ...

It's a systemic issue with the expanded statism we're now under, to not only see this level of standard 'police procedure' competely unjustified for the alleged crime/perp, but to see people yourself defnding the system.

They have the full justification to do it to you as well ... all of us.



No, it calls the system out ... the police are just the instrument. Just like blaming soldiers for wars and what happens in them, because of the Rules of Engagement (RoE), is the same level of bullsh-- too.

Stop calling for the execution of people with the government's guns. That's what you're doing. You're condoning it.



That's not making them whole. Making them whole is to outlaw no knock warrants, period. Let them be rejustified.

At some point in the future, I see myself moving to any state that literally resets their entire code. Because it's going to get ugly.

He’s not. He’s stating the truth from Amir Locke’s perspective only.

 

[UCFBS]

Tell me why it shouldn’t have been justified as a legal entry before you build the rest of an argument on a poor foundation.

There is no justification for a no knock raid for an alleged petty crime, period.

When they guy was shot at Wendy’s a bunch of people said “why don’t we just let him go home and get him later?” What do you think that looks like?

Are you really equating the two?! Seriously?

People coming barging in, guns drawn, on a guy at home, versus ... Oh yeah.

Stop defending the system! Stop making it about the police!

 

[Cubs79]

I’ve already stated where I stand on ridiculous no-knock warrants. But let’s not act like “posed no threat to them” applies here.

The practice of no-knock warrants creates opportunities for both police and citizens to be acting completely legally and suddenly both posing serious threats to each other. That level of risk is unacceptable.

He was sleeping on his couch. He didnt create a threat, they did buy busting in the house. It is completely ridiculous to expect private citizens to know what is going on when someone busts in their house, especially as in this case, when they are asleep when it happens.

 

[UCFBS]

He’s not. He’s stating the truth from Amir Locke’s perspective only.

That's the only one that matters ... honestly. It would be the case for any of us.

 

[Cubs79]

But he did pose a threat when they identified themselves as police officers and he presented a gun at them. You can’t brandish a gun at a law enforcement officer legally acting in their job. Period.

You have to look at it from both perspectives. Which is something that you haven’t done yet. Is he guilty of a crime? Probably not given that it’s probably reasonable that a person would respond to someone crashing in your door as a lethal threat. But from the officer’s perspective, they legally entered the residence and he started pointing a gun at them. So a reasonable officer would see that as a deadly threat. Given the little we know now, you can make the case that both parties acted reasonably in the circumstance.

If an innocent person sleeping on his couch is killed, then you cant expect people to just come to the conclusion that everything involved was reasonable, it wasnt. And to expect someone to just know what the hell is going on when someone busts down their door, is not a reasonable expectation.

 

[UCFBS]

This is where Conservatives make me cringe.

 

[Cubs79]

This is where Conservatives make me cringe.

As it should, it is a direct conflict to what most of them preach. They want people to be able to own guns, but then if you have a gun it reasonable to take that as a threat. They preach small government, but the government killing an innocent person in their own house, is the ultimate case of big government. THey preach fiscal responsibility but of course its tax payers who have to foot the bill for lawsuits that come from these situations, etc etc.

 

[sk8knight]

There is no justification for a no knock raid for an alleged petty crime, period.


Are you really equating the two?! Seriously?

People coming barging in, guns drawn, on a guy at home, versus ... Oh yeah.

Stop defending the system! Stop making it about the police!

Obviously there was because they followed due process according to laws written by elected officials. Stop elevating this to the theoretical.

 

[Cubs79]

Obviously there was because they followed due process according to laws written by elected officials. Stop elevating this to the theoretical.

Then laws need to be changed and police need to refuse to carry out no knock warrants.

 

[sk8knight]

If an innocent person sleeping on his couch is killed, then you cant expect people to just come to the conclusion that everything involved was reasonable, it wasnt. And to expect someone to just know what the hell is going on when someone busts down their door, is not a reasonable expectation.

Hence why I said that Amir Locke acted reasonably multiple times.

 

[sk8knight]

Then laws need to be changed and police need to refuse to carry out no knock warrants.

I’m fine with that. As I’ve also said multiple times.

But inflammatory rhetoric unfairly paints officers that are acting legally trying to apprehend a murderer as evil villains and divides everyone. We need to be better than that.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Then laws need to be changed and police need to refuse to carry out no knock warrants.

Fine, will you then volunteer to go serve warrants when dealing with murder suspects? I'm sure the police would be happy to let you knock on the door for them and inform said murder suspect that you'll be entering the premises.

 

[Cubs79]

Fine, will you then volunteer to go serve warrants when dealing with murder suspects? I'm sure the police would be happy to let you knock on the door for them and inform said murder suspect that you'll be entering the premises.

I am not a cop, why would I volunteer to do someone elses job? And if they dont like it, they can find a new job as well, as many other people throughout society do when they dont like their jobs.

 

[Cubs79]

Hence why I said that Amir Locke acted reasonably multiple times.

But he still wound up dead, so obviously something in this situation isnt reasonable.

 

[sk8knight]

I am not a cop, why would I volunteer to do someone elses job? And if they dont like it, they can find a new job as well, as many other people throughout society do when they dont like their jobs.

What happens when you are unable to find people who will do the job under the rules that you set?

Society doesn’t want police to be soldiers. Let’s not then tell them require them by law to put their own lives at risk because “it’s their job.” These are real people who emote and bleed and hurt and, in the case of my wife, has two young boys to come home to after her shift.

 

[Cubs79]

What happens when you are unable to find people who will do the job under the rules that you set?

Society doesn’t want police to be soldiers. Let’s not then tell them require them by law to put their own lives at risk because “it’s their job.” These are real people who emote and bleed and hurt and, in the case of my wife, has two young boys to come home to after her shift.

This doesnt make sense with regards to your prior argument. You are arguing they were in danger which is they they shot him, but now you are saying getting rid of these warrants would put them at more risk? Which is it? Are no knock warrants safer for cops or less safe for cops?

You find people by paying better, just like in any job. Police is a profession, there is no reason to treat it as something else. They can go do something else just like anyone else in society can. And is this really the argumet? People decide to sign up to be a cop because of no knock warrants? They wont sign up if they cant conduct no knock warrants? I highly doubt that is the case.

Yes, I understand cops are people, just as Amir Locke was a person and had people who cared about him too. Not sure what that has to do with anything.

 

[sk8knight]

This doesnt make sense with regards to your prior argument. You are arguing they were in danger which is they they shot him, but now you are saying getting rid of these warrants would put them at more risk? Which is it? Are no knock warrants safer for cops or less safe for cops?

You find people by paying better, just like in any job. Police is a profession, there is no reason to treat it as something else. They can go do something else just like anyone else in society can. And is this really the argumet? People decide to sign up to be a cop because of no knock warrants? They wont sign up if they cant conduct no knock warrants? I highly doubt that is the case.

Yes, I understand cops are people, just as Amir Locke was a person and had people who cared about him too. Not sure what that has to do with anything.

No, you misunderstood. No-knock warrants can be safer when you’re trying to apprehend known armed and violent suspects in a place where they control everything. The element of surprise is the key because they theoretically wouldn’t be able to arm themselves before you can make the room/structure safe. There is still plenty of threat.

Now, take that same room full of violent suspects that are armed and knock on the door. You can imagine that everyone burns the evidence and everyone gets armed. In some cases, Officers have been shot and killed through the door after the knock. So a no-knock in those situations can be safer for everyone.

People decide to be police because they think that they can make the world a better place. They aren’t signing up to charge armed suspects that know they’re coming. Some of them do that as part of their job but that’s no why they’re police officers. There have been many political actions that have eroded officer safety. It’s cumulative. Departments across the country have lost good officers because of political actions already. So each little bit makes a difference.

Just pay them better? Right. Municipalities are run by people that are elected. Those officials are incentivized to get votes. When the public perception is to call police officers executioners like you implied earlier, do you think anyone Mayor/City Council is going to put more funding for police in the public budget? Let me answer that for you. They don’t. They buy a new big fire engine or station and everyone feels safer. Or they build a splash pad for the kids to play. Or just about anything other than funding police.

And on the micro level, how much money is your life worth? How much money would it take for you to be legally required to go into deadly situations where you may be killed or you may have to kill someone. Doing so while following procedures that you’re told are right and will protect you but knowing that a prosecutor will lie about in a court of law to destroy your life if it suits their agenda. Or that a civil lawyer whose been clamoring to remove qualified immunity will sue you and take away every cent that you ever earned. Even though you did your job perfectly following all of your training and procedures. How much money would it take Mr. it’s not my job to take that job?

 

[Cubs79]

No, you misunderstood. No-knock warrants can be safer when you’re trying to apprehend known armed and violent suspects in a place where they control everything. The element of surprise is the key because they theoretically wouldn’t be able to arm themselves before you can make the room/structure safe. There is still plenty of threat.

Now, take that same room full of violent suspects that are armed and knock on the door. You can imagine that everyone burns the evidence and everyone gets armed. In some cases, Officers have been shot and killed through the door after the knock. So a no-knock in those situations can be safer for everyone.

People decide to be police because they think that they can make the world a better place. They aren’t signing up to charge armed suspects that know they’re coming. Some of them do that as part of their job but that’s no why they’re police officers. There have been many political actions that have eroded officer safety. It’s cumulative. Departments across the country have lost good officers because of political actions already. So each little bit makes a difference.

Just pay them better? Right. Municipalities are run by people that are elected. Those officials are incentivized to get votes. When the public perception is to call police officers executioners like you implied earlier, do you think anyone Mayor/City Council is going to put more funding for police in the public budget? Let me answer that for you. They don’t. They buy a new big fire engine or station and everyone feels safer. Or they build a splash pad for the kids to play. Or just about anything other than funding police.

And on the micro level, how much money is your life worth? How much money would it take for you to be legally required to go into deadly situations where you may be killed or you may have to kill someone. Doing so while following procedures that you’re told are right and will protect you but knowing that a prosecutor will lie about in a court of law to destroy your life if it suits their agenda. Or that a civil lawyer whose been clamoring to remove qualified immunity will sue you and take away every cent that you ever earned. Even though you did your job perfectly following all of your training and procedures. How much money would it take Mr. it’s not my job to take that job?

You are making more of this than what it is. Rational people dont want innocent people killed by police, that is all this is, and I dont think that is remotely unreasonable. Werent you saying you think no knocks should be done away with? Why has your argument and tone changed all of a sudden? You started the thread, and said the MNPD continues to "shine", which I assume is sarcastic and was a criticism of the police, but now you appear to be taking the opposite argument.

Biden literally just gave more money to cities to use with police funding, so you are wrong about that. Most people arent against police, they are against bad police and bad policing. If more money is what it takes to get better police, whether that be through better training or just hiring better people, I think most people are ok with that. The other side of that, is that your tax dollars are used to pay out lawsuits against police depts. I would much rather my tax dollars be used for bettering police, than having to pay lawsuits for bad police work.

People sign up to be police for a variety of reasons, let's not act like every single cop is a great upstanding citizen trying to make the world a better place. We arent that naive to believe that. Some of them are for sure, but you are casting a wide net to apply to a lot of people.

 

[UCFBS]

Obviously there was because they followed due process according to laws written by elected officials. Stop elevating this to the theoretical.

It's not due process.

 

[chemmie]

SWAT teams train for that and train often for that. They execute these throughout the year and you never hear of any complications until something like this happens.

Ultimately this practice is probably due for some review, but it's also not just the cops "executing" a black person like the original story pinned it as. It's a tragic accident whereby police executed a lawful warrant and lawful entry of the premise of someone wanted for murder, his cousin happened to be there instead, and drew a weapon on police during the entry. Like I said, really tragic accident.

A few dead negros is okay for 85. He's cool with it.

 

[Crazyhole]

A few dead negros is okay for 85. He's cool with it.

A+ for shock value. D- for trolling effort.

 

[chemmie]

A+ for shock value. D- for trolling effort.

85 is cool with a few thousand kids being raped by the Catholic Church. He's at least consistent.

 

[Crazyhole]

85 is cool with a few thousand kids being raped by the Catholic Church. He's at least consistent.

And you have what to say about the kids that are brought across the border to be used as sex slaves?