Another Police Related Shooting in the MSP Area?

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
24,466
Reaction score
5,723
Points
113
He'd probably have him already if he didn't have to stalk people on Gopherhole. We're saving Joe's presidency!

Well you are being mean to big brother deuce. He has to tantrum on you before getting the big guy.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
48,706
Reaction score
3,497
Points
113
You’re right. Probably had nothing to with the county wide curfew.
In Maryland? I don’t understand your point. I love when people I have no history with just come hard with the sarcasm.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
48,706
Reaction score
3,497
Points
113
No mention of the Peyton Ham story on those liberal cesspools, OANN or Newsmax, either. Those M-Fer’s!
This would be an awesome point if I hadn’t already said that Fox didn’t cover the Peyton story either. My point was not what you think it was.
 




short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
11,070
Reaction score
2,789
Points
113
Back to the matter at hand. I think one of the central questions here is the use of weapons by police. If a bad guy has a gun and is shooting at the cops, of course they are going to shoot back But, what we are seeing in a lot of these cases are police shooting first because they are assuming the person they are dealing with is a threat. I get that being a cop is inherently dangerous. But, that does not give them the right to start blazing away in any situation. I don't want to see anyone get shot because the police guessed wrong about their intentions.
 

STPGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
6,309
Reaction score
710
Points
113
Back to the matter at hand. I think one of the central questions here is the use of weapons by police. If a bad guy has a gun and is shooting at the cops, of course they are going to shoot back But, what we are seeing in a lot of these cases are police shooting first because they are assuming the person they are dealing with is a threat. I get that being a cop is inherently dangerous. But, that does not give them the right to start blazing away in any situation. I don't want to see anyone get shot because the police guessed wrong about their intentions.
Nope! You are not allowed to question training, or any other policing issue.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
7,820
Reaction score
3,708
Points
113
Making jokes about the death of a 16-year old. Classy Howie. What a winner.
Spoof is very offended....
🤣🤣🤣

Spoofs head would probably explode if he saw the jokes I get shown at work. Yesterday it was a picture cartoon female cop in a halloween sexy police outfit smiling saying. Oops I thought it was Tasie.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
20,207
Reaction score
4,700
Points
113
He'd probably have him already if he didn't have to stalk people on Gopherhole. We're saving Joe's presidency!
Too funny. I point out your lies and you making jokes about a kid who died and I’m stalking you. You think very highly of yourself. Pathetic.
 





Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
20,207
Reaction score
4,700
Points
113
Funny how upset Jojo voters got about Trump losing. Just like all the Gary Johnson voters in 2016 turned out to love Trump dearly. What are the odds?
Link?
 




BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
15,195
Reaction score
2,166
Points
113
Here that has no bearing, a 26 year veteran mistook her gun for a taser in Brooklyn Center. Her mistake is the unique part of the entire equation.
Was it a mistake for Mr Wright to attempt to flee police custody?
 




BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
15,195
Reaction score
2,166
Points
113
This case is publicly widespread because of a horrible mistake by a professional that resulted in an unintended murder. That doesn't require me to fill in details or provide extended narrative liscence.
Nor does it require you to be honest about Mr Wright and his criminal record, apparently.
 

jamiche

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
22,505
Reaction score
2,576
Points
113
look who’s assassinating Dante’s character. Why are you Trayvoning Dante? He didn’t deserve to die Jammer, how dare you infer he did.
Now I have to teach you the difference between inference and implication, melvin. Even you couldn't have inferred that I was implying that Dante deserved to die because the next sentence in my post stated that he didn't deserve to die. Followed by the point that we had a situation with two panicked individuals, one with a gun who lacked competence and training.

An appropriate inference is when craig, less and the new poster started posting immediately about Dante's criminal record. I think it was less who posted the criminal complaint about the armed robbery. Their reporting on the victim's past was extensive and one sided. That's when it's appropriate for non binaries to infer that your fellow donalds were implying rather strongly that the victim deserved what he got.

Hope this helps. See me for follow up.
 

goldengophers

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
2,570
Reaction score
579
Points
113
Nor does it require you to be honest about Mr Wright and his criminal record, apparently.
It just doesn't matter in this case, she didn't mistake the gun for a taser because of his criminal record. Having a criminal record doesn't equal right to be killed on the spot. I understand your game but in this case there is no reason to play it as an individual died wholly due to a mistake and misconduct.
 

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
15,195
Reaction score
2,166
Points
113
It just doesn't matter in this case, she didn't mistake the gun for a taser because of his criminal record. Having a criminal record doesn't equal right to be killed on the spot.
Let's sp[in it back a few posts - Was it a mistake for Mr Wright to attempt to flee police custody?

THAT matters.
 


MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
24,432
Reaction score
5,888
Points
113
Back to the matter at hand. I think one of the central questions here is the use of weapons by police. If a bad guy has a gun and is shooting at the cops, of course they are going to shoot back But, what we are seeing in a lot of these cases are police shooting first because they are assuming the person they are dealing with is a threat. I get that being a cop is inherently dangerous. But, that does not give them the right to start blazing away in any situation. I don't want to see anyone get shot because the police guessed wrong about their intentions.
"Shoot first, ask questions later" needs to be illegal.
 



MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
24,432
Reaction score
5,888
Points
113
By that logic the drunk driver that kills someone simply made a mistake.
Nope.

The correct analogy would be a drunk driver who only decides to crash into someone because they have a criminal record.


You lose.
 

GopherRock

GopherHole Straw Boss
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
3,827
Reaction score
82
Points
48
Manslaughter 2 is the correct charge. Negligent discharge of a firearm leading to someone else's death.

That said, maybe my definition of negligent discharge (anytime a gun goes off when the responsible person didn't intend it to) is much broader than some of your definition.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
24,432
Reaction score
5,888
Points
113
Manslaughter 2 is the correct charge. Negligent discharge of a firearm leading to someone else's death.

That said, maybe my definition of negligent discharge (anytime a gun goes off when the responsible person didn't intend it to) is much broader than some of your definition.
I posted the Minnesota statute here: https://www.forums.gopherhole.com/b...-shooting-in-the-msp-area.101177/post-2208601

(1) is the main one that applies here, the rest seem to be for very specific situations that don't apply.


The thing which has been brought up is the idea (and potential difficulty) of establishing that an "unreasonable risk" was created.

I personally don't think it would be difficult to convince a jury that that did indeed happen. But I am a layperson.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
48,706
Reaction score
3,497
Points
113
Now I have to teach you the difference between inference and implication, melvin. Even you couldn't have inferred that I was implying that Dante deserved to die because the next sentence in my post stated that he didn't deserve to die. Followed by the point that we had a situation with two panicked individuals, one with a gun who lacked competence and training.

An appropriate inference is when craig, less and the new poster started posting immediately about Dante's criminal record. I think it was less who posted the criminal complaint about the armed robbery. Their reporting on the victim's past was extensive and one sided. That's when it's appropriate for non binaries to infer that your fellow donalds were implying rather strongly that the victim deserved what he got.

Hope this helps. See me for follow up.
Ah, I see your problem. You think there are only two options. Deserved it, or did not deserve it. So anyone providing evidence or argument that fits more in the “deserved it” camp, thinks he deserved it. A very binary argument.
Of course, most of us here aren’t thinking of these as binary situation. What you call “character assassination” is what curious people call finding out more about the victim, putting the shooters response and motive into context, etc.

Dante didn’t deserve to die.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
8,817
Reaction score
3,694
Points
113
Nope.

The correct analogy would be a drunk driver who only decides to crash into someone because they have a criminal record.


You lose.
Correct. Man, too bad he got killed by a texting driver, but he did beat his wife. If you find this tragic, you are for wife beating.
 




Top Bottom