Posted on 04/06/2022 9:57:32 AM PDT by Theoria
The Minneapolis police officer who fatally shot Amir Locke, a 22 year-old Black man, while executing a no-knock warrant in February won’t face criminal charges, prosecutors said.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and Hennepin County Attorney Michael Freeman said in a joint statement Wednesday there was insufficient admissible evidence to file charges against Officer Mark Hanneman.
“The State would be unable to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the elements of Minnesota’s use-of-deadly-force statute that authorizes the use of force by Officer Hanneman,” the statement said. “Nor would the State be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a criminal charge against any other officer involved in the decision-making that led to the death of Amir Locke.”
Mr. Locke was killed on the morning of Feb. 2 when police officers were executing a no-knock warrant in connection to a murder investigation by the St. Paul, Minn., Police Department.
Mr. Locke wasn’t named in the search warrant and wasn’t a suspect in the investigation, prosecutors said. He was asleep on a couch as police entered the apartment just before 7 a.m. After police kicked the couch, Mr. Locke appeared to stir under a comforter and emerged holding a handgun, according to body camera footage released by police. The gun appeared to be held parallel to the ground, then dropped to a 45-degree angle, then held in the direction of Mr. Hanneman, according to prosecutors. Officer Hanneman fired three shots.
The officer said he feared for his life and the lives of his teammates, according to the joint report from the Hennepin County attorney’s office and Minnesota attorney general’s office.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
Thug cops.
Weather is pretty crappy here today. Should be perfect for riots by Friday evening.
None of which is actually visible in the bodycam video and takes place in under a second from kick to shooting.
This was a "bad shoot" by police in this incidence.
I don’t know about this particular situation, but we seriously need to revisit how no-knock warrants are issued and executed in this country.
No-knock warrants should be illegal. A reasonable person would assume that someone kicking in their door is there to do them harm and will defend themselves as best they can.
I’m stunned that Keith and Mike were in agreement.
Not that I’m an expert on this case but we really need to do something about no-knock raids.
Any no-knock or midnight raid warrant should require the approving judge to be on sight before, during, and after the raid. That would put an end to that crap unless it was really an issue of public safety.
Cover up.
> ... we seriously need to revisit how no-knock warrants are issued and executed in this country. <
I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, no-knock raids are just another part of the militarization of our police forces. Cops today often dress like soldiers. So it’s no surprise that they often act like soldiers, and not like police officers.
There was a gun incident near where I live the other day. The cops showed up in these olive drab armored vehicles. I get the armored part. By why the army olive drab? Maybe that’s not a big deal. But it sure sends the wrong message.
I agree. There might be a very few instances where such a warrant is needed but routine use should be a abated.
Other than a hostage situation I see no reason for no-knock raids.
"Fourth Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
No knock aside, a warrant MUST be person specific. The gentleman killed in this no knock warrant was not on the warrant. He had every right to defend himself and stand his ground against ANY uninvited intruder.
The left luvs their black clad JBTs almost as much as they hate regular uniformed street cops.
My opinions:
1) Only the local sheriff’s (elected) office should form SWAT teams and carry out SWAT activities including no-knock raids
2) Such raids should require the signature of the Sheriff and a Judge to attest under penalty of perjury that there are exigent circumstances and the no-knock raid is required to preserve life and limb of civilians.
3) The sheriff’s office is liable for any and all damages and injuries resulting from a violation of this procedure.
I could understand if they suspected a kidnapping victim was in the house (or something similar) but otherwise “no-knock” raids shouldn’t be used. It puts the cop and the person in the house at a needless risk.
I’d add one thing to your excellent list:
A marked police car must be involved in all no-knock raids. And just before the target’s door is breached, that police car must turn on its lights and siren.
Give whomever is inside at least a clue that it’s the cops coming through the door, and not a burglar.
Some might say that the lights and siren would deprive the cops of the element of surprise. I’d say that breaking down a door would do that anyway.
A trial resulting in acquittal, assuming it even got that far, might have resulted in rioting in the more favorable autumn months. I don’t think the Dims want that, going into the midterms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.