Printable View
Mpls. Man: Police Beat Me For Gun, Despite My Permit « CBS Minnesota
Looks like a good lawsuit. Police stop a man when they see a silhouette of a gun on his waist and rough him up despite him informing them of his being a legal carry permit holder.
Should be another payment by the city of Minneapolis to a citizen whose rights were violated. Even though permitted carry is legal in Minnesota, the police in the big cities treat it differently- especially if it is a black man.
They'll learn. It may cost the city considerably, but eventually they'll figure it out.
If the story is correct, the cops have a problem. Would be interesting to see the video.
Can you carry in a nightclub in MN? It did say he was coming out of a nightclub, didn't it? That still wouldn't be reason to slam his head on the sidewalk or any of the other rough behaviors!
You can. Law is that you can't carry impaired, so you can't be 0.04% BAC or above. Bars and nightclubs are not banned per se but they can post, but if you carry despite the post and you are asked to leave AND you don't, it's a petty misdemeanor trespass fine only.
So, he was well within his rights and said he did the right things. Too many big city cops think they are the only ones who SHOULD have guns, so anyone else is assumed to be a bad guy. Like it was said, they'll learn if it costs them enough.
they should have given him a teddy bear and hugs.
On the face of the news report, I would say that King should be owning the city pretty soon and the retirement funds of the 5 cops involved. If I were in his shoes, I would be going for "hate crime" status also. The thing that does bother me is he was leaving a nightclub...is that legal where he is? Still doesn't give reason for what happened but was there something in his mannerisms that triggered the response. Guess we'll have to wait to see the film.
Whole lot here unknown.
On face value, I see things a little different;
A) he has had trouble in the past for recording the police. Baiting? Looking for a payday?
B) has been charged and acquitted of manslaughter because his pit bull decided to eat his 7 year old son. OK.. so he was acquitted... but it still says something about his character.
C) Despite what the media and pop culture would have you believe, the police just dont go around beating people willy nilly. Yes, some tactics can be quick and at times "brutal" but you don't go poking bears with sticks either.
Rodney King's son?
I hope he owns the city after the dust settles.
He didn't have the gun 'concealed' very well if they saw it from a distance. The police don't use x-ray vision. Concealed means concealed not bulging out of your waist band of your pants. However, the police shouldn't have given him that lump on his head provided his story is true.
I was going to make a remark about "B" and that it showed a lack of good judgement on his part. I can't say much for "A", I know there are those looking for a payoff, in my case, I would be looking to use it more for insurance. You never know when you will run up on the overzealous LEO, and we all know they are out there, I would prefer to have something on my film in case the in car camera were to "fail".Quote:
Originally Posted by SIXTO
Now, all that said, I'm not a LEO, know a couple and that's about it. I understand the need for using overwhelming force when subduing but (and here comes the "armchair quarterbacking") I think the dog pile my start a little too soon in some cases. If someone is "bewildered" or reacting slowly for the same reason but in no other way are they being aggressive or menacing, this does not required a 10 man dog pile or tasing. Like I say, I'm not a LEO and therefore, anything I say is just my opinion; I know when reacting to a situation, you don't have time to have a meeting. I do remember when in Panama for "Just Cause", the little civilian vehicle convoy I was in was hit by a small ambush and training did kick in...I reacted but I do remember in the quick area scan I did as I was repositioning myself that I did see those people who were not obviously armed and saw the 2 or 3 places from my vantage point that could possibly harbor someone with an AK and that is what I fired on, no absolute target but more of an intent to suppress. It has been over 22 years now and there are still times when I wonder if I did the right thing; what if there had been an innocent hidden where I couldn't see. I guess what I'm trying to say there is that although everything was happening in real time, I could see what I perceived to be non-threats. If I could do that, then why can't 5 LEOs determine whether a guy with his hands over his head but maybe a tad slow is a significant threat or not. It's a judgement call obviously and I'm not saying I'm right...I just saying.
Sorry, looks like I hijacked the thread to try and make my point....and didn't do a really good job of that in the end I guess.
[QUOTE=SIXTO;2297865]On face value, I see things a little different;
Is the bolded part speculation?Quote:
A) he has had trouble in the past for recording the police. Baiting? Looking for a payday?
I disagree with the bolded section, I think that this only says something about the charachter of his pit bull. Remember, he was aquitted.Quote:
B) has been charged and acquitted of manslaughter because his pit bull decided to eat his 7 year old son. OK.. so he was acquitted... but it still says something about his character.
I also disagree with part (the bolded section) of this statement. I do believe that there are officers that will beat a person just because they can get away with it. Not most, but i believe that they do exist.Quote:
C) Despite what the media and pop culture would have you believe, the police just dont go around beating people willy nilly. Yes, some tactics can be quick and at times "brutal" but you don't go poking bears with sticks either.
Of course, the media would publish the story all one sided. There are two sides to every story and we don't yet know the other side.
Can you say "the police over reacted". And sadly there are officers that are should be say "over zealous" (trying to be nice about it).
Also just because he may be a "shady character" there was no reason for the unprofessional way of handling the situation by the officers, especially the one yelling gun,gun,gun. In the end they will slip him a some money and mostly likely nothing will happen to the officers.
As with most of these type threads my opinion is based of the news article which may of may not contain all the pertinent information. As I see this one the officers where wrong.
