MN Police Shoot and Kill Daunte Wright

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wright was a very bad man.

The warrant was over unpaid fines for 2 minor misdemeanors — one a marijuana case — totaling $346. He pled guilty, filed for deferred payment and they were sent to collections.

We can't have individuals like this in our communities.

This made him a bad man.

Pretty sure the "bad man" post was sarcasm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Another white female here. I’ve never once been let off with a warning. Tickets every time (just minor speeding, nothing serious). I’m very polite and I immediately find everything the police will need before they get to my car and hand it over without a fuss.

I’m so sick of people acting like white people treat police like crap and get away with it. First, we don’t treat police like crap. And second, we don’t get away with things either.

It’s never crossed my mind to complain about police officers doing their job.

Wow, you think you speak for all white people?!

I’m a former prosecutor and defense attorney, 20 years in multiple jurisdictions - two of which, Maine and Montana, are about 98-99% white. I’ve seen thousands of hours of dashcam and body cam video in which plenty of white people have given crap to police and resisted arrest and even assaulted police. You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

And for the record, in jurisdictions where cops don’t have any people of color to persecute and engage in excessive use of force on, they settle for doing it to white people. Including killing them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer here who used to go after bad cops. Video is clear and is why bodycam video is needed. This was a mistake. She says taser, taser taser and fires a single pull. If she was shooting him a single pull is unlikely. If she meant to shoot him and cover it up most would yell gun not taser, taser, taser. The other officers are not clear for a gunshot either. Also the context is a guy slipping out of handcuffs and there is an ongoing battle. There is no crime committed by the officer. Negligent homicide requires a level of intent that is not really negligent despite the name. I will go further and say they may not be able to legally fire her. I think they will. Mayor is already calling for it but she will get the job back with back pay. People may not like that but it is what I see.

You get your job back after a lethal mistake? The cop who killed Oscar Grant served time.

NP. This killer cop needs to be prosecuted and spend at least a few years behind bars. She definitely should never work as a police officer ever again given her gross lack of self-control and judgement.

You are just not watching the video. Or you are and you don't understand what you see. There is no evidence this was anything other than a mistake. There is no crime for a mistake in this situation. Someone above said there is probable cause. Of what? Not that a crime has been committed. A guy is dead. That is awful. But she does not have the intent needed. That disregard. A poster above said taser should have been on other side. Maybe someone could argue that but I do not think so. There is no such firm requirement and it all depends on what the officer wants to do. But for those people saying it should have been on the other side, what if in another scenario it was and she still did this? From my perspective no change in analysis.

She made a mistake. there is no gross lack of self control and judgment. She made the decision to deploy non lethal force. That decision in the context of that video is correct. Her judgment is correct. She makes an error in performing. That simply put is not a crime even when someone dies.

what is she was in a fight and used a baton. She means to make a legal strike but she misaims and the person moves and she hits him in the head and he dies. No crime there. She made a mistake and there is a death. No you would not lose your job for this. Same as what happened here.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

It absolutely IS department policy and REQUIRED that all officers wear their taser on the nondominant side, and their gun on their dominant side. It’s department policy, it’s trained, it’s drilled into them. The whole purpose is to avoid a situation where the wrong weapon is drawn in ‘the fog of war.’ This woman is a 26 year veteran officer - no way she doesn’t know this policy and requirement.

Additionally, the differences in shape, weight, color, and trigger pressure required makes it inexplicable that a 26 year veteran officer could pull her firearm and think she’s holding her taser. It’s nonsensical. Never mind that in the body cam video you can see with your own eyes that her firearm is extended in front of her, in her own line of vision, and it’s a black Glock and not a yellow taser. The officer to her right has his taser holstered on his nondominant (left) side and you can see it, how bright yellow and not black Glock it is.

Finally, under Minnesota law she can be charged with murder for the consequences of the action she ‘meant’ to engage in - tasering Wright. If her actions resulted in his death, whatever she intended her actions caused that deadly result and her gross negligence and disregard for human life - just like in Chauvin’s case - could see her charged with 2nd degree murder.

Plus she’s a piece of shit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer here who used to go after bad cops. Video is clear and is why bodycam video is needed. This was a mistake. She says taser, taser taser and fires a single pull. If she was shooting him a single pull is unlikely. If she meant to shoot him and cover it up most would yell gun not taser, taser, taser. The other officers are not clear for a gunshot either. Also the context is a guy slipping out of handcuffs and there is an ongoing battle. There is no crime committed by the officer. Negligent homicide requires a level of intent that is not really negligent despite the name. I will go further and say they may not be able to legally fire her. I think they will. Mayor is already calling for it but she will get the job back with back pay. People may not like that but it is what I see.

You get your job back after a lethal mistake? The cop who killed Oscar Grant served time.

NP. This killer cop needs to be prosecuted and spend at least a few years behind bars. She definitely should never work as a police officer ever again given her gross lack of self-control and judgement.

You are just not watching the video. Or you are and you don't understand what you see. There is no evidence this was anything other than a mistake. There is no crime for a mistake in this situation. Someone above said there is probable cause. Of what? Not that a crime has been committed. A guy is dead. That is awful. But she does not have the intent needed. That disregard. A poster above said taser should have been on other side. Maybe someone could argue that but I do not think so. There is no such firm requirement and it all depends on what the officer wants to do. But for those people saying it should have been on the other side, what if in another scenario it was and she still did this? From my perspective no change in analysis.

She made a mistake. there is no gross lack of self control and judgment. She made the decision to deploy non lethal force. That decision in the context of that video is correct. Her judgment is correct. She makes an error in performing. That simply put is not a crime even when someone dies.

what is she was in a fight and used a baton. She means to make a legal strike but she misaims and the person moves and she hits him in the head and he dies. No crime there. She made a mistake and there is a death. No you would not lose your job for this. Same as what happened here.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

It absolutely IS department policy and REQUIRED that all officers wear their taser on the nondominant side, and their gun on their dominant side. It’s department policy, it’s trained, it’s drilled into them. The whole purpose is to avoid a situation where the wrong weapon is drawn in ‘the fog of war.’ This woman is a 26 year veteran officer - no way she doesn’t know this policy and requirement.

Additionally, the differences in shape, weight, color, and trigger pressure required makes it inexplicable that a 26 year veteran officer could pull her firearm and think she’s holding her taser. It’s nonsensical. Never mind that in the body cam video you can see with your own eyes that her firearm is extended in front of her, in her own line of vision, and it’s a black Glock and not a yellow taser. The officer to her right has his taser holstered on his nondominant (left) side and you can see it, how bright yellow and not black Glock it is.

Finally, under Minnesota law she can be charged with murder for the consequences of the action she ‘meant’ to engage in - tasering Wright. If her actions resulted in his death, whatever she intended her actions caused that deadly result and her gross negligence and disregard for human life - just like in Chauvin’s case - could see her charged with 2nd degree murder.

Plus she’s a piece of shit.

Also this:

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

It absolutely IS department policy and REQUIRED that all officers wear their taser on the nondominant side, and their gun on their dominant side. It’s department policy, it’s trained, it’s drilled into them. The whole purpose is to avoid a situation where the wrong weapon is drawn in ‘the fog of war.’ This woman is a 26 year veteran officer - no way she doesn’t know this policy and requirement.

Additionally, the differences in shape, weight, color, and trigger pressure required makes it inexplicable that a 26 year veteran officer could pull her firearm and think she’s holding her taser. It’s nonsensical. Never mind that in the body cam video you can see with your own eyes that her firearm is extended in front of her, in her own line of vision, and it’s a black Glock and not a yellow taser. The officer to her right has his taser holstered on his nondominant (left) side and you can see it, how bright yellow and not black Glock it is.

Finally, under Minnesota law she can be charged with murder for the consequences of the action she ‘meant’ to engage in - tasering Wright. If her actions resulted in his death, whatever she intended her actions caused that deadly result and her gross negligence and disregard for human life - just like in Chauvin’s case - could see her charged with 2nd degree murder.

Plus she’s a piece of shit.

Can anyone link to the source of her having the taser on dominant side?

I agree it’s inexplicable in many respects. But all I’ve seen are pictures, presumably from other times, which seem to show her duty belt set up with taser on left (presumed non dominant side). Maybe it was different during the incident, but I haven’t seen any way to confirm that.

It’s pretty hard to know how she drew or where stuff was located without seeing an external view, but based on her body worn camera, she is holding a piece of paper (citation? Something about the warrant?) in her right hand. Right before the shooting it seems like she transfers it to her left hand and then we see the gun come up in her right hand. Initially I thought maybe she already had it drawn. But it seems like she drew it quickly after transferring the paper. Based on the body worn camera I can’t really speculate on her field of vision or where she’s looking, but the way she holds the gun and single discharge does seem more consistent with using a taser than a gun.

There’s really no way to qualify the tragedy of the outcome. A young life was lost here and there’s no way to walk that back. There’s really no way to adequately express how difficult this must be for his family and for the young passenger who witnessed this.

Noor was charged with second degree (intentional) murder, but was not convicted on that charge at trial. Noor intentionally shot though, so I’m not sure the same set of arguments exists here for 2nd degree with intent unless they develop more info to suggest the shot was intentional. There’s also second degree unintentional murder in MN (which Chauvin is charged with) which I guess there arguments that could fit but it seems weaker in this case on the intentional assault element. In my opinion you could make a stronger argument for 3rd degree that discharging without confirming is reckless conduct, shows disregard for human life that endangered others (Daunte, his passenger, and the other officers who are potentially in the line of fire). Manslaughter might be a more likely conviction because I foresee defense could argue whether it’s “depraved” conduct under the circumstances. There is probably more information investigators have so I guess we’ll see tomorrow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just curious here; informal poll

- how many felony warrants does everyone have?

- how many illegal gun charges did you have when you were 20?

- what’s everyone’s rap sheet look like, especially as to narcotics dealing before you were 21?

- does anyone here have insurance on their car?

Irrelevant. People who commit crimes still have rights, like it or not.

Like it or not, cops have a right to be maybe a little more cautious around armed drug dealers, doncha think?

All of this is hindsight. At the time, he was a just a Black kid, and that alone was enough to make him scary.

His warrants / past gun-crimes were known before the officers even got out of their car; they appear automatically on the cruiser’s plate - reader.

Misdemeanor for a permit. Big deal

Wasn’t he arrested 2 years ago for holding up a woman at gunpoint and trying to steal $800+?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wright was a very bad man.

The warrant was over unpaid fines for 2 minor misdemeanors — one a marijuana case — totaling $346. He pled guilty, filed for deferred payment and they were sent to collections.

We can't have individuals like this in our communities.

This made him a bad man.

I know these comments are both sarcasm but holding up a woman at gunpoint and attempting to steal money is not a minor offense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wright was a very bad man.

The warrant was over unpaid fines for 2 minor misdemeanors — one a marijuana case — totaling $346. He pled guilty, filed for deferred payment and they were sent to collections.

We can't have individuals like this in our communities.

This made him a bad man.

I know these comments are both sarcasm but holding up a woman at gunpoint and attempting to steal money is not a minor offense.

And choking her!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer here who used to go after bad cops. Video is clear and is why bodycam video is needed. This was a mistake. She says taser, taser taser and fires a single pull. If she was shooting him a single pull is unlikely. If she meant to shoot him and cover it up most would yell gun not taser, taser, taser. The other officers are not clear for a gunshot either. Also the context is a guy slipping out of handcuffs and there is an ongoing battle. There is no crime committed by the officer. Negligent homicide requires a level of intent that is not really negligent despite the name. I will go further and say they may not be able to legally fire her. I think they will. Mayor is already calling for it but she will get the job back with back pay. People may not like that but it is what I see.

This is why it's not myopically about one case. It's about a system.

This doesn't happen to white people in rich neighborhoods. Not because they commit less crime. But because they aren't seen as unworthy of life.

Sorry, but yes “because they commit less (violent) crime”. Have you lived in the US?

Years old, but didn’t feel like looking very hard and seems fair: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Cop who investigates police shootings here.

It was a mistake, she did not “intend” to shoot him. But she did not follow police procedures (keep tazer on opposite side of body) and her neglect caused a death. Procedures are in place so these things don’t happen.

That is a crime.

Thank you.

She may not have been a "bad" copy as in a "dirty" cop but she is a bad cop due to negligence and/or poor training.

Mistaking a firearm for a taser is a MAJOR mistake and in this situation a deadly mistake.

And of course it had to be made into a racial
issue even when it wasn’t one.

It is.

I'm a white female and when I was young, I was outright hostile to cops. Ran from them, yelled at them, gave them attitude, etc. None ever tazed me. Most laughed it off, let me off with a warning instead of a ticket, hell some would give me their #.

BIPOC can't do that.

Did they know you had a gun?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Cop who investigates police shootings here.

It was a mistake, she did not “intend” to shoot him. But she did not follow police procedures (keep tazer on opposite side of body) and her neglect caused a death. Procedures are in place so these things don’t happen.

That is a crime.

Thank you.

She may not have been a "bad" copy as in a "dirty" cop but she is a bad cop due to negligence and/or poor training.

Mistaking a firearm for a taser is a MAJOR mistake and in this situation a deadly mistake.

And of course it had to be made into a racial
issue even when it wasn’t one.

It is.

I'm a white female and when I was young, I was outright hostile to cops. Ran from them, yelled at them, gave them attitude, etc. None ever tazed me. Most laughed it off, let me off with a warning instead of a ticket, hell some would give me their #.

BIPOC can't do that.

Wow. I'm also a white female and have had cops treat me like crap. FWIW, I have never been "in trouble" with the law--not even a speeding ticket. This is when I had to make a police report as a victim.

I would never yell at a cop or "give them attitude."

Another white female here. I’ve never once been let off with a warning. Tickets every time (just minor speeding, nothing serious). I’m very polite and I immediately find everything the police will need before they get to my car and hand it over without a fuss.

I’m so sick of people acting like white people treat police like crap and get away with it. First, we don’t treat police like crap. And second, we don’t get away with things either.

It’s never crossed my mind to complain about police officers doing their job.

That’s because you have not lived as a black man in America.

No, it’s because I’m not entitled enough to believe that my circumstances are special and I have the right to resist arrest - just like tons of white men who are shot resisting arrest. Where are their “peaceful protests”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wright was a very bad man.

The warrant was over unpaid fines for 2 minor misdemeanors — one a marijuana case — totaling $346. He pled guilty, filed for deferred payment and they were sent to collections.

We can't have individuals like this in our communities.

This made him a bad man.

I know these comments are both sarcasm but holding up a woman at gunpoint and attempting to steal money is not a minor offense.

WHOA, is this true?

Why would someone try to portray him as an angel?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dash cam footage is out. It’s bad. She thought she had a taser.

I think the body cam footage is quite exculpatory. He wrestled out of handcuffs (!!! Why???) and she followed procedure for taser. She clearly had no lethal intent. If he had stayed instead of driving off, they could have administered first aid and maybe saved him. Sorry, but he’s the start for each thing that went wrong here.

It’s horrible, but he should have not fled.

It’s horrible but they should not have fought him. They could easily picked him up later.

This isn't a complex thought: Police should not shoot anyone running away from them. Ever.

+1 The Supreme a court ruled on this before this officer was even born. It should not keep happening.

Incorrect. Officers can fire at subjects while running away in several situations, including notably when they are fleeing the scene of a violent felony and/or fleeing the scene armed in an attempt to gain cover. You really think officers can’t fire at a man they saw shoot someone and run away? Just think it through people, it’s not that hard.

+1

Are the other posters trolls or just ignorant? A police officer can absolutely shoot someone fleeing if they have prob cause to believe that they pose a deadly threat or a threat of great bodily harm to the community if they escape. The supreme court ruled on this about 35 years ago in Tennesse vs Garner. Another relevant case for use of force would be Graham vs. Connor. But you would probably rather ramble on about your political/SJW nonsense.

No. The other posters aren't trolls or ignorant. They are replying to the facts in this case. What you said is irrelevant to this situation. You sound like an ignorant troll.

Soccer mom adding no substance as usual. At least you didnt ramble on about racism endlessly.