746

Shot at him and put him in the hospital and police refuse to do anything until a lawyer was involved (slrpnk.net)

submitted 7 months ago by ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net to c/thepoliceproblem@lemmy.world

54 comments fedilink hide all child comments

He's finally arrested.

Minneapolis police are now facing heavy criticism for not arresting Sawchak before the shooting even though he had multiple complaints.

Members of the Minneapolis City Council, including Mayor Jacob Frey, pointed blame at the Minneapolis police department for not acting on any of the prior complaints against Sawchak and failing to arrest him immediately after the shooting. https://newsone.com/5658819/white-man-shoots-black-neighbor-minneapolis/

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Letstakealook@lemm.ee 149 points 7 months ago

Once again, armed white criminals have more rights than unarmed innocent POC in this country. The police likely support what this man did.

[-] 4lan@lemmy.world 38 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

For anyone who thinks this comment is hyperbolic, never forget Nathan Pelham the Jan 6 insurrectionist.

When police came to take him in he drunkenly shot his gun at them from his home. Shooting to kill.

The police drive away and let him "sleep it off"

Imagine if that was a black man. He and his whole family would be shredded by assault rifles.

White domestic terrorists are being coddled by law enforcement.

Arm the left.

[-] pinkystew@reddthat.com 9 points 7 months ago

It's a racist institution. It stopped being good for the people decades ago. It needs to go.

[-] PyroNeurosis 102 points 7 months ago

“He should not have been shot, but I will say this: We had no reason to suspect that he would shoot the neighbor from inside the house.”

The man who was being very aggressively territorial wouldn't shoot someone from inside his house?

[-] credo@lemmy.world 21 points 7 months ago

No, they assumed he would go outside first.

[-] tacosplease@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

They were really caught off guard by that and are frankly a little disappointed with the assailant.

[-] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 75 points 7 months ago

Call me crazy, but if you point a gun at a neighbor for any reason other than being attacked, you probably shouldn’t be allowed to have guns.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 69 points 7 months ago

Brandishing is a crime. The issue here is it isn't being enforced.

[-] modus@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago

State laws differ and whether brandishing is considered a misdemeanor, a felony, or even a crime at all is going to depend on your state’s laws.

It's not a crime at all in my state.

[-] Entertainmeonly 12 points 7 months ago

Wait for real? I could just point my gun at anyone i want and there is no law that's being broken?! What state is that? That's fucking crazy.

[-] modus@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Pennsylvania. It's an open-carry state. There is no law that says anything about brandishing.

That said, if you point a gun at someone, you are responsible for whatever happens next, including bullets flying in your direction.

(I'm not a lawyer so there might actually be a law about brandishing. I've just never pointed a gun at anyone so just don't come here waving your gat around all willy nilly.)

[-] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

There's no specific law for brandishing a firearm because it's charged under assault, deadly conduct, terroristic threat, menacing, and/or disorderly conduct. Often more than one charge.

I assure you, brandishing in the sense it's used in other state law is very much illegal in Pennsylvania, and is arguably punished more severely than many states that have specific laws on the books -- partially because it doesn't have a specific law, you're subject to the caprice of the person that brings suit and the judge. If you look up cases of this being tried in Pennsylvania, you'll find that it's robustly prosecuted.

[-] Fosheze@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago

Generally speaking, even if your state doesn't have brandishing laws, pointing a firearm at someone is still considered assault. Assault is the unlawful attempt or threat to cause harm to another person.

[-] Samvega 72 points 7 months ago

I'm glad that, where I live, the racists find it difficult to get guns.

[-] crunchyoutside@lemmy.world 51 points 7 months ago

MPD told the HCAO they do not intend to execute the warrant ‘for reasons of officer safety,'” the Minneapolis City Council said in a letter.

This... this boggles. This is almost Uvalde-level cowardice. What's the point of gifting military armored vehicles, gear, weapons, and training to police departments if they won't use them to execute an arrest warrant for attempted murder?

The command structure responsible needs to be regifted to other agencies that are bad at Google searches.

[-] freddydunningkruger@lemmy.world 30 points 7 months ago

Oh, didn't you know? The police are under NO requirement to protect at the individual level.

The Supreme Court of the United States explained that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.”

[-] sorval_the_eeter@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago

yes, they need all their tactical gear, cars, salaries and guns taken away if they refuse to do their jobs. Issue them some etch a sketches and chromebooks.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 48 points 7 months ago

According to CBS News, Sawchak was taken into custody early Monday morning. Police said Sawchak had been holed up in his house for several days, but just before 1:30 a.m., he surrendered peacefully

[-] NessD@lemmy.world 61 points 7 months ago

Several days? Was this a siege? In any other case they'd torn down the house.

[-] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 48 points 7 months ago

There must not have been any dogs or innocent bystanders to kill.

[-] EldritchFeminity 23 points 7 months ago

Besides, he was white, which is code for "negotiations only."

[-] Nastybutler@lemmy.world 20 points 7 months ago

He was white.

[-] Bob_Robertson_IX@discuss.tchncs.de 16 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

With Christopher Dorner they burned the house down with him in it. Apparently the Minnesota police could use some training from California police.

Edit: /s

[-] nelly_man@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago

And in Colorado, police blew up somebody's house because a shoplifter broke in and refused to leave.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_of_Robert_Seacat

[-] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

With Christopher Dorner they burned the house down with him in it.

TBF that's less egregious than randomly shooting up cars that didn't even match the description of Dorner's car.

[-] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Just because the vehicle they shot up was the wrong make, model, year, color, and had two people in it that didn't match the description in any way, shape, or form doesn't mean the shooting wasn't justified. They both had four wheels, did they not? Ok then.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 47 points 7 months ago

Minneapolis City Council needs to take charge of this and clean house. Police aren't going to do it themselves, so the holder of the pursestrings is the one ultimately responsible.

[-] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 39 points 7 months ago

Vengeance is what happens when the system doesn't provide justice.

[-] skittle07crusher@sh.itjust.works 37 points 7 months ago

WHAT THE FUCK

[-] riodoro1@lemmy.world 31 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

America is such a racist fucking shithole. Literally 3rd world level of prejudice. If not trump it’s gonna be someone else in four years. Idiotic societies end up with totalitarianism.

That’s what you get for pretending the issue is solved instead of actually solving it.

[-] Zementid@feddit.nl 7 points 7 months ago

A nation founded on the genocide of the natives, which never accepted its roots on a base level.

[-] riodoro1@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Destiny: manifested

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] RangerJosie@lemmy.world 20 points 7 months ago

Pointing guns at people is an exceptionally great way to get fuckin' shot. I can think of no better way to all but guarantee you get shot than to point a gun at someone else.

[-] Dasus@lemmy.world 27 points 7 months ago

Yeah that made me have a thought. John Oliver did an episode on "stand your ground" ages ago, and reading that guy's message, asking "what he can do", I'm forced to conclude that for him, in the US, in that situation, it would probably be best to get a gun himself and the next time the guy does something like this, just two to the chest.

Seeing he has a restraining order and whatnot previous things, probably should be somewhat of an easy case to defend as self-defense, right? Unless it's just even fucking sadder, and it is just because he's black and he'd just end up imprisoned for murder.

God the world is shit nowadays where shall we congregate a force to have a teensy weensy global revolution?

[-] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Unfortunately, that would probably just result in him drowning in legal fees. Killing someone, even if it is completely justifiable in self-defense, is extremely expensive. Like, 6 figures expensive. That said, this man is going to fucking kill him so....also I guess even if he doesn't, now he has medical fees anyway.

Jesus Christ what an all around fucked situation :(

[-] bcgm3@lemmy.world 15 points 7 months ago

... for him, in the US, in that situation, it would probably be best to get a gun himself and the next time the guy does something like this, just two to the chest. ... Seeing he has a restraining order and whatnot previous things, probably should be somewhat of an easy case to defend as self-defense, right? Unless it's just even fucking sadder, and it is just because he's black and he'd just end up imprisoned for murder.

"Imprisoned for murder" might still be on the optimistic side of potential outcomes... He could well be murdered himself, by the police, in reponse to what you and I see as self-defense. (I am guessing from the "in the US" part of your comment and other context that you aren't from here, and may not be aware of the history of institutionalized racism that would make any interaction with the police potentially dangerous for him. Forgive me if I have erred there.)

[-] Revan343@lemmy.ca 10 points 7 months ago

Imprisoned for murder

Imprisoned for self defense while black.

It's a similar problem as driving while black, walking while black, etc...

[-] Dasus@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Forgive me if I have erred there

You're so loud ghe whole (Western) world knows most about your business.

You are right of course, and any interaction with police could be dangerous. But if he just shoots the guy, then calls the authorities while clearly laying his weapon far away from him and being on his knees with his hands on his head, there shouldn't be an excuse for the cops to murder him.

But an alarming amount of things I've thought would never happen with the police have happened. Both in the US and here in Finland. Now I don't need to be afraid of getting murdered, but the abuse still didn't feel good.

[-] Fosheze@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

MN is not a stand your ground state. If you are threatened in public then you have a duty to retreat if able. However, MN is a castle doctrine state so if someone threatens you on your property then you are perfectly clear to use any reasonable means up to and including lethal force to defend yourself and your property. So your initial idea only works in MN if the threat took place on his own property of if he is unable to get away from the threat.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 7 months ago

John Oliver did an episode on "stand your ground" ages ago

Doesn't require stand your ground, unless you could reasonably flee the attacker. If they've got a gun it's not too hard to argue that you couldn't reasonably flee or they'd shoot you in the back.

Stand your ground just removes the duty to try to get away from an attacker if possible, and is only the law in some states.

[-] AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Though not required for this situation, stand your ground laws have a big effect. When no such law exists, you're definitely going to be the subject of a homicide investigation and may get charged and have to get a jury to acquit. When those laws do exist, the police won't bother investigating and the DA won't bring charges in many cases. In states like Texas or Florida, pretty much all you have to do is be on your property or say you felt threatened and shot first and you're free to go.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Fosheze@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

I can think of no better way to all but guarantee you get shot than to point a gun at someone else.

Foraging in your whitetail deer fursuit durring hunting season is about the only way I can think of.

[-] Plague_Doctor@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago

Astounded by the mental gymnastics to say that after this person brandished a knife from inside his home saying he'll kill someone, the police couldn't imagine he'd shoot someone from the vantage point of his home. Incredible.

[-] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 15 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

"We had no reason to suspect he would shoot the victim from inside his house."

Um. OK. Finish that thought?

"We just assumed, after repeated threats to do so, he would shoot him from outside his house, so you can see where our confusion arose. When he shot from inside, we didn't know that to do. Who would? Is it even illegal to shoot your neighbors, if you do it while inside your house? Truly a question for the ages. We had to consult attorneys about this. They said that while it's probably perfectly legal, we should probably take him in for questioning just in case.

But, again, given this completely novel new concept of shooting from -- and I want to repeat this so everyone sees why this was so confusing for us -- inside his house, we worried for the safety of our officers, because we have no training for something this radically different. Fortunately the poor fellow did walk outside, and we of course immediately arrested him. He was outside his house at that point, you see?"

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] SpiceDealer@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago

From the article:

Minnesota Senator Omar Fateh also called out MPD, demanding an independent investigation.

What are the chances of that "independent investigation" going nowhere due to "external factors"?

load more comments

this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2024

746 points (100.0% liked)

THE POLICE PROBLEM

3361 readers

828 users here now

The police problem is that police are policed by the police. Cops are accountable only to other cops, which is no accountability at all.

99.9999% of police brutality, corruption, and misconduct is never investigated, never punished, never makes the news, so it's not on this page.

When cops are caught breaking the law, they're investigated by other cops. Details are kept quiet, the officers' names are withheld from public knowledge, and what info is eventually released is only what police choose to release — often nothing at all.

When police are fired — which is all too rare — they leave with 'law enforcement experience' and can easily find work in another police department nearby. It's called "Wandering Cops."

When police testify under oath, they lie so frequently that cops themselves have a joking term for it: "testilying." Yet it's almost unheard of for police to be punished or prosecuted for perjury.

Cops can and do get away with lawlessness, because cops protect other cops. If they don't, they aren't cops for long.

The legal doctrine of "qualified immunity" renders police officers invulnerable to lawsuits for almost anything they do. In practice, getting past 'qualified immunity' is so unlikely, it makes headlines when it happens.

All this is a path to a police state.

In a free society, police must always be under serious and skeptical public oversight, with non-cops and non-cronies in charge, issuing genuine punishment when warranted.

Police who break the law must be prosecuted like anyone else, promptly fired if guilty, and barred from ever working in law-enforcement again.

That's the solution.

♦ ♦ ♦

Our definition of ‘cops’ is broad, and includes prison guards, probation officers, shitty DAs and judges, etc — anyone who has the authority to fuck over people’s lives, with minimal or no oversight.

♦ ♦ ♦

RULES

① Real-life decorum is expected. Please don't say things only a child or a jackass would say in person.

② If you're here to support the police, you're trolling. Please exercise your right to remain silent.

③ Saying ~~cops~~ ANYONE should be killed lowers the IQ in any conversation. They're about killing people; we're not.

④ Please don't dox or post calls for harassment, vigilantism, tar & feather attacks, etc.

Please also abide by the instance rules.

It you've been banned but don't know why, check the moderator's log. If you feel you didn't deserve it, hey, I'm new at this and maybe you're right. Send a cordial PM, for a second chance.

♦ ♦ ♦

ALLIES

• !abolition@slrpnk.net

• !acab@lemmygrad.ml

• r/ACAB

• r/BadCopNoDonut/

• Randy Balko

• The Civil Rights Lawyer

• The Honest Courtesan

• Identity Project

• MirandaWarning.org

♦ ♦ ♦