“Intentionally Racist”: Rep. Tlaib Declares Wright Shooting “Wasn’t An Accident”

Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib wasted no time in declaring that the shooting of Daunte Wright was a racist shooting and no accident. The long advocate for defunding police has declared that she is done with “government funded murder.” I have a column this morning in The Hill discussing how such comments can prejudice not only the case against any officer in the Wright case but the ongoing trial of former officer Derek Chauvin. While a long advocate to defund the police, Rep. Tlaib seems to go even further to call for an end of all policing in her most recent comments.

There is evidence suggesting that the shooting may have been accidental. In the videotape, the officer is heard yelling “taser, taser, taser” before he exclaims “Holy S**t, I just shot him.” There remain serious questions about the stop and execution of the arrest. However, Tlaib clearly is not willing to wait for those facts to be established.

Rashida Tlaib declared on Twitter on Monday night that the death of Daunte Wright “wasn’t an accident” and was “inherently [and] intentionally racist.”

There is evidence that the shooting may have been a  “confused weapon” case where an officer mistakingly grabs his service weapon rather than his taser.  Particularly given the riots and looting that is occurring in Minnesota, one would hope that government officials would caution against assuming facts and encouraging the public to wait for the results of the investigation.

The officer has been put on administrative leave.

Tlaib’s call for “no more policing” will rekindle the defund the police debate to the chagrin of many who see the cause as hurting Democrats.

Following the death of George Floyd, Tlaib announced her support for legislation called the BREATHE Act. The bill would divest federal money from federal law enforcement entities, close federal detention centers, and create federal incentives to close state prisons.

The latest comments are breathtaking.  Tlaib states categorically that the incident was “inherently & intentionally racist” but also declares “no more policing, incarceration, and militarization. It can’t be reformed.” What does that mean? No more policing or incarceration in a large society would invite anarchy and chaos. This is a member of the United States Congress calling for the end of policing entirely as if the United States could get by on the honor’s system.

Tlaib demonstrates how the defund the police movement remains strong in the United States and, despite denials from some in the media, remain as unambiguous as it is extremist.

273 thoughts on ““Intentionally Racist”: Rep. Tlaib Declares Wright Shooting “Wasn’t An Accident””

  1. Aside from breaking campaign finance laws and stealing from her election fund she wants to make life unlivable in the US. She will get protection but we and our children won’t. Along with many other horrible things she wants to

    defund police nationwide
    abolish ICE and the Customs & Border Protection (CBP) agency
    decriminalizing illegal border entry
    eliminating state gang databases
    close all federal prisons and immigration detention centers
    remove police, armed security and metal detectors and other surveillance equipment from schools

    This is what Democrats support. Democrats support criminal societies.

    Yet despite not being there Jan 6 she broke down crying saying she was terrified. However she doesn’t care when BLM and Antifa riot in the streets while she wants the police to stand down.

    1. S. Meyer, you’ve made a lot of claims with nothing to back them up. Is there a hint of racism behind that bitterness?

      1. “S. Meyer, you’ve made a lot of claims with nothing to back them up.”

        Are you Stupid Svelaz? Those were points that were contained in her bill. But at least you are now telling us you are against what Tlaib is promoting. That is progress.

        1. Show the exact wording in the bill, Allan. But, of course, you can’t because you’re just parroting right wing tv.

          EB

          1. Bug some of the phrases I used might be the exact same phrases from her bill that you can look up. However, I am impressed that you seem to find some of her points to be disturbing.

            SM

            1. A couple of sentences you’ve muttered here and, of course, a huge misread and a wildly deliberate re-framing on your end. Subtlety is not your strong suit, let’s just say that. But hey, you just be you and keep treating factual reality as something that just doesn’t matter. That you are, indeed, skilled at.

              EB

              1. Bug, I think the name of the bill is the BREATHE Act. I am not sure if I have the exact spelling correct. You can check it out. Tlaib is a co-sponsor. I can give you information. I can’t make you understand it or believe it. I can’t even get you to check the facts. You are what you are so you can remain ignorant.

                SM

                1. Post the wording of the Bill itself, Allan. You’ll be quite educated by the experience.

                  EB

                  1. Bug, in the past I have posted the links that proved my case.You never responded. You ran away. Why do I have to dissect the BREATHE Act for you? It is readily available. If I did you would run away again. Tlaib was the co-sponsor and I think Presley was the other sponsor.

                    It’s about tie you learned to look things up so that when you say something it doesn’t make you look foolish.

  2. What happens when anyone just comply with the police? No resistance no fighting, just complying.

    1. It’s hard to comply with police when you have two officers giving you conflicting commands. That’s what happened in Virginia. There was no legitimate reason to pull guns out after evidence shows the temporary tag was visible on the back window. Officers who are allegedly “trained” to be observant didn’t bother to notice the tag. Instead proceeded to do a felony stop. Then there’s the threat of ruining his career if he files a complaint.

      All these police interactions involve one common denominator. Really poor training and judgment by officers. Couple that with constant excuses and implied immunity and you have no incentive to be held accountable. Getting rid of implied immunity is one thing everyone agrees should be an important step. No more hiding behind poor training excuses.

      1. “All these police interactions involve one common denominator.”

        That common denominator you mention is: they’re wanted on warrants, they resist arrest, start fighting and that’s when things escalate! Just comply go quietly, answer the charges, get legal counsel. Your going to get released anyone, that’s really been a common denominator.

        1. Margot, nope. You don’t shoot someone for fleeing. It doesn’t matter if they have warrants or not. Police policies on shooting people are very strict. You don’t just shoot someone to stop them from fleeing. Only if an officer’s life is in danger or the other person is armed. This case didn’t meet those criteria. Plus you have the fact that the officer INTENDED to use her taser instead of her firearm.

          He fled AFTER he got shot. Not because he had a warrant. Especially a misdemeanor warrant.

          Philando Castile obeyed everything the officer asked him to do. He even warned the officer about his gun. He got killed even when he was doing as he told to do. Officers don’t really think. They just do what their training requires them to do. They develop a tunnel vision when they stick strictly to procedures which don’t give them much room to think.

          1. Many of these unfortunate incidents result from miscommunication.

            The Philando Castille case is a good example. Here is my suggestion of how things went wrong:-

            1/ Policeman stops car;
            2/ Philando Castile thinks I don’t want him to be surprised when he frisks me and finds my gun which for a black man being stopped by a white policeman is a very wise thought indeed or is most times;
            3/ Policeman asks “may I see your ID”?
            4/ Philando Castile starts reaching for his wallet and simultaneously tells policeman that he has a licensed gun;
            5/ Policeman thinks he is black and has told me he has a gun, HE IS GOING TO SHOOT ME..
            6/ Policeman says “STOP REACHING”. He does not say “STOP REACHING FOR YOUR GUN”;
            7/ Philando Castille thinks “WHAT IS THIS CRAZY POLICEMAN ON ABOUT, HE ASKED ME TO GIVE HIM MY ID AND NOW HE SAYS TO STOP REACHING FOR IT;
            8/ Policeman’s gun says “BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM”;
            9/ Philando Castile’s girlfriend says “You have just shot my boyfriend dead”.

          1. This a-freakin’-American should be dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Army he should never have been allowed to enter.

      2. “Really poor training and judgment by officers. “

        Svelaz, Police departments do have standards for intelligence, abilities, training, etc. Based on your comments my guess is you wouldn’t even be considered for training as a police officer. I doubt you even come close to meeting their intellectual requirements. Maybe you should apply as a front door watcher for Walmart.

      3. Svelaz:
        (1) I would suggest to you that the police did NOT draw guns “after evidence show[s] the temporary tG was visible on the back window.” You kind of glossed over the fact that he did not stop and continued to drive for another mile. Although he LATER said that he wanted to find an area with more light, I would suggest that the police were responding in the moment to a fleeing car without visible tags. I would also suggest to you that, irrespective of a later determination of the tag in the window, he ignored/ disobeyed police order to get out of the car. That’s when things escalated. You should get a job with CNN or maybe MSNBC?

  3. A couple things to keep in mind…, taser triggers and handgun triggers are of different design. By design. Still could be accidental but only in the case of a badly trained officer or one who was riding a perilous edge in terms of interaction with the public. And yes, Talaib jumped the gun, but the shooting has been declared a murder by the medical examiner at this point.

    And Turley should censor himself for the alluding to a particular word in his article if he’s anywhere near being honest with his supposed views on free speech as it relates to how he regulates the speech of others on his blog.

    EB

    1. Your ignorance is appalling. The medical examiner “declared” a homicide, not a murder.

      1. My bad. Misuse of a word on my end. Glad I could contribute to your being appalled in any tiny way I could though. My day is a success.

        EB

        1. Anonymous arguing with yourself, do you have multiple personality disorder by any chance?

          1. Not speaking here to Carlyle Moulton, whoever that may be.

            I’m speaking to Darren re the above. If you’re so willing to police the blog comments section for acronyms and such, why do you let comments like the one above exist. There is zero merit to them. They’re abusive. They’re trolling. The adjectives describing them are unlimited, actually.

            Just curious. Is this a policy you’ve discussed with Turley? Comments deemed from the left on this blog have, as long as I’ve been around, been deemed fair game to just tee off on and are regularly subjected to vile responses.. Is it a branding thing with Turley now he works at Fox? Does he get a kick out of what commenters from the left put up with? If there is subtextual weight to using acronyms in your rating system, what about the subtextual weight given to those commenters coming in just below the surface with references to gun violence that are not exactly infrequent here? I would *love* to see the official rationale here.

            EB

            1. Actually, better yet, since there may be an official rationale here (that is clearly not followed) I suppose I’d love to hear the un-official rationale. That’s what piques my curiosity more.

              EB

              1. EB, just tried to post a response to your inquiry and was immediately put on moderation because I used correct inoffensive explanations of certain words. I simply put, why are acronyms censored? I could say a female dog is a b$&h and a male rooster is c%!k. Obviously it’s more about the words rather than the meanings.

                1. Svelaz, I think that WordPress puts some comments into moderation based on specific words. That’s not Turley’s doing (other than that he’s choosing to use WordPress for his blog rather than using a different platform).

                  1. Anonymous, if that’s the case why isn’t Turley demanding WordPress allow commenters free reign? It’s the same thing he criticizes other platforms of doing. He is an internet originalist. Surely he would be demanding his own blog stop censoring others for expressing their true opinions. That’s the whole idea isn’t it?

                    1. Svelaz, Do you believe Turley’s platform should be totally open to free speech where four letter words and threats are made?

                    2. S. Meyer asks: “Do you believe Turley’s platform should be totally open to free speech where four letter words…are made?”

                      “four letter words”

                      Oh noes! Horror of horrors!

                      And AFAIK, Darren is the one who takes care of “threats” — not WordPress…

                      We know that you’d like to be a blog-monitor, but it would seem that you’re not. Too bad, so sad for you…

                    3. Anonymous the Stupid, try typing the four letter word F***. Watch how the comment doesn’t make it to the net. Are you Stupid enough to believe that Darren checks every email for errant words.

                      You really do live up to your name, Anonymous the Stupid.

                    4. “Are you Stupid enough to believe that Darren checks every email for errant words.” -Stupid Meyer

                      Who said that he does?

                      Stupid Meyer has a reading comprehension problem, which may help to account for his problems on this blog.

                    5. Anonymous the Stupid, based on the sequence of comments and their context you were Stupid enough to make that mistake.

                      The comment to Svelaz was: “Svelaz, Do you believe Turley’s platform should be totally open to free speech where four letter words and threats are made?”

                      That comment didn’t say anything about who censors threats. Word Press censors specific words and possibly phrases along with making errors. Threats where context is required is what I believe Darren censors along with a whole bunch of your garbage.

                      Maybe now that I have once again been forced to add the Anonymous the Stupid back you will be able to more easily figure out what is being said and to whom.

                    6. Allan, what was censored was a couple of posts (and your response) apparently because of the use of an acronym. I suspect you know this already though and flagged Darren on it.

                      EB

                    7. Bug, you are not making sense. Perhaps your usual lack of attentiveness made you forget the context of the preceding remarks.

                      SM

                  2. Banning perjorative words does not work as over time if the dominance relation still exists the replacement words acquire the same perjorative meaning as has happened with “The N – Word”.

            2. My question is fair. Sometimes you sign initials EB and sometimes a name SAL SAR and sometimes no signing at all. Your handle and gravatar remain the same.

              You had 3 successive comments in the first one you used the term “murder” in the second you criticise your previous comment for using “murder” instead of “homicide” and in the third you apologize to comment 2 and admit that using “murder” is a mistake.

              Is anonymous with the gravatar used in these 3 comments one person or a group or do you adopt different personas for different comments. Then there is the other poster who uses the handle anonymous but has a different avatar. I thought asking whether you have MPD was a humorous way to put this question, I meant no insult.

              1. Carlyle, that gray icon is assigned to anyone who doesn’t include an email address when they post their comment. Unlike the other icons, that icon corresponds to lots and lots of people.

                You can run an experiment for yourself. Post a comment with your name but no email, and then with your email but no name, and then with neither. The first will show up as your name with the gray icon, the second with your icon but “Anonymous” as your name, and the third as “Anonymous” with a gray icon.

                Hope that answers your question.

                EB and Sal Sar both choose to sign their anonymous comments. They’re different people. I’m yet another person.

              2. I’ll have to pause a moment to laugh uproariously at the fact you have me, EB, short for Elvis Bug, with Sal Sar, who often posted as Mr. Kurtz (and hasn’t been around much of late). It brings up an interesting phenomenon, actually…, does the inability to recognize various writing styles qualify as the opposite of multiple personality disorder? Is it an inverse reaction of a sensibility that is hyper sensitive to various personality traits (mpd) to suddenly shift to one unable to detect nuance? Fascinating. And by your standards, a completely fair question.

                EB

                1. Elvis Bug.

                  There are people on this blog who are obsessed with claiming that a new handle is a sock puppet of a previous poster that is considered a troll. In fact when relatively recently I recommenced commenting after an absence of some years someone accused me of being someone else’s sock puppet.

                  I do not care the name under which someone posts, only the content of the post and I don’t even try to identify different writing styles so that I can identify the same person commenting on multiple names. The content of the post whether it makes sense is the thing to which I devote brain power not analysing writing styles.

                  I do note that at least one person posting as “anonymous” has a different gravatar to the one that you and Salsar and …. use.

                  Regards C M

          2. Carlyle, multiple people post comments anonymously. Anyone who wants to can post anonymously. Some people only post anonymously, and other people sometimes post anonymously and sometimes post under a name. The 9:59AM comment was made by a different person than the one who made the 9:42 and 10:16AM comments (and I’m yet a third person).

            1. But all posting with the same handle “Anonymous” and all with the same gravatar. For others of us to understand this sharing of a handle you should all have identifiers so we don’t get confused.

  4. I am a white female attorney, and over the (many) years, I have been pulled over for (1) outdated license plate, (2) not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign ( what we used to call a ‘California stop”), and (3) not using a turn signal. SHAME on mainstream media (NBC, ABC) for race-baiting. Same thing with the Army lieutenant Carin N. who is suing Windsor VA police. I was taught to do what the police (reasonably) ask me to do, -and for this, I only received warnings. When you flee, resist, or become combative, you are asking for trouble, black or white. I am tired of MEDIA propaganda pretending that blacks are victims.

    1. He should have cooperated. And she shouldn’t have shot him. You say “SHAME on mainstream media (NBC, ABC) for race-baiting,” and I say shame on you for complaining about the media and being silent about an incompetent police officer who just killed someone without cause.

    2. Any policing model that does not take into account that people of color have ample reason to be terrified of police pullovers is an incomplete and limited model. You might not like that reality, but it is reality and will translate to clouded reactions on the ground. Furthermore, the model’s incompleteness should not be justification for misdemeanors to translate to death sentences on the street.

      EB

    3. “I am tired of MEDIA propaganda pretending that blacks are victims.”

      If only you could be black for a few years.

    4. Anonymous female attorney, you seem to be a very poor observer of things. You’re not black you’re subjected to racism as others do. You have no idea what it’s like, yet you claim it’s all an act of victimhood.

      Police officers are not always properly trained, properly vetted, or have a history of abusing their position. When police officers are allowed to lie to you, have immunity for mistakes or intentional abuses of their position you end up with a bunch of bad, incompetent, or officers who really shouldn’t be officers at all that make all of them look bad. How often do you see police officers saying some of their own have no business being police officers.

      1. I am the “Anonymous female attorney.” (1) your sentence, “You’re not black you’re subjected to racism as others do” makes no sense whatever. (2) you actually HELPED my observance by noting that police officers “are not properly trained…etc.” But the MEDIA turns it into a “black victim, white police officer”
        scenario–with selective fact reporting and slant, and without mention of other relevant, explanatory, or otherwise exculpatory facts –precisely the point I was making. Thank you for helping me make my point.

        1. Anonymous female attorney, that was meant to say, you’re not black you’re NOT subjected to racism as others do”.

          Poor training along with racist biases are the fundamental problem that continues. It’s not being addressed and it’s going to take more than just watching a video to call it “training”.

  5. Rashida Tlaib’s statements are incendiary and destructive. She is an extremist, a totalitarian that appears to forget that words matter as they mattered on January 6, 2021. Tlaib should begin by abolishing law enforcement in her town, her county, and her state. Once we see the results of her experiment, let others decided.

    I agree that this incident is nothing short of a tragedy. Life will never be the same for the victim’s family or for the officer that fired the fatal shot. The women that fired the shot should not be in law enforcement. Taking a life because you used the wrong equipment is not an excuse. She chose her career, and that choice includes the responsibility.

  6. “There remain serious questions about the stop and execution of the arrest”

    Based on what information? I read the driver was in violation the law for having something dangling from his rear-view mirror and then fled the scene because he had an open warrant for his arrest. Are these contested facts?

    1. He tried to flee after he was shot. You might try to flee if an officer shot you for no reason too.

      1. He didn’t flee after he got shot, he fled BEFORE he got shot because he had a warrant out (surprise!). He also fled a year early when the police tried to arrest him for having an illegal firearm.

  7. The racemongers and victim community are having a field day with their demagoguery. Top of the list is Rashida Tlaib. She knows this was a racist incident because, ummm, Wright was black, so it must have been a race thing. Never mind that thousands of people of all races get pulled over each year for expired tabs, and they somehow manage to survive. Wright would have too if he hadn’t tried to run after the cops learned there was a warrant out for his arrest — ironically, for running from police last June when they caught him with an illegal firearm. To put this down to racism rather than Wright’s own actions, is to perpetuate the myth of black victimhood. And that’s critical race theory.

    1. He didn’t “run after the cops learned there was a warrant out for his arrest,” he tried to drive off after he was SHOT for no reason.

      It’s striking that you’re silent about a police officer who is so incompetent that she pulls a gun when she intended to pull a taser. Do you want a cop like that on the street?

      1. No, he got shot AFTER he fled because he had a warrant out for… are you ready for this? FLEEING THE POLICE A YEAR EARLIER FOR HAVING AN ILLEGAL FIREARM.

          1. “He was shot before he tried to flee.”

            That’s false. He resisted arrest, pulled away from the officer trying to cuff him and jumped back into his car. His actions, right then and there, are an attempt “to flee.”

            Many of you operate on the bogus premise: Let’s only look at what happened *after* the perp resists arrest.

            1. Sam, attempting to flee is not grounds for getting shot. The officer was not in danger of being run over. She was not in front of the car. Resisting arrest is also not a reason to shoot. It’s not reasonable to use deadly force to force someone to comply to stop resisting arrest.

              Attempt to flee is not fleeing. He actively fled after being shot. He was meant to be tased as the officer clearly called out, “taser, taser, taser!” And pulled out a gun instead.

              Tasing someone for resisting arrest is perfectly reasonable. Shooting someone for resisting is not.

            2. No, Sam, legally, resisting arrest (which in some states may include pulling away, but in other states has to be more forceful) is not the same as evading arrest (fleeing).

              He resisted, he was shot, and then he fled. He did not flee prior to being shot.

        1. Anonymous, NO. He fled after he was shot. The officer intended to use her taser to stop him from being able to flee. She used her firearm instead. After he got shot is when he fled.

          He was getting into his car, at that moment he was shot when he was meant to be tased. Cop is clearly heard realizing he shot him instead of being tased.

          1. “Cop is clearly heard realizing he shot him instead of being tased.”

            after *she* shot him, I believe

  8. I don’t understand referring to the shooting officer as male, when I think it has been clear the officer is female. There is no longer any doubt as the officer’s identity has now been released.

  9. If you cannot tell whether you are holding a taser or a pistol you are too stupid to be entrusted with either. This person should never have been given a deadly weapon.

  10. You think Turley will post a comment about the ADL calling for the firing of his colleague Tucker Carlson for promoting the White Supremacist “Replacement Conspiracy Theory”? You would think that this free speech controversy would be ripe for his First Amendment blog. On the other hand, my hunch is Turley would rather not wish to defend such odious speech on First Amendment grounds. It would be not unlike defending Alex Jones’ charge that the Sandy Hook massacre was a false flag operation. Both have a right to spread their lies, but who would seek to be their advocate even in principle?

    1. Tucker Carlson has a First Amendment right to voice his opinions. I support his First Amendment right to that. The ADL also has a First Amendment right to call for Carlson to be fired.

      The First Amendment does not give anyone a right to a TV program. Depending on Carlson’s contract with Fox, it may or may not be legal for them to fire him for this. The legality depends only on the contract. Even if it’s legal, I doubt Fox would fire him, as he’s probably good for business on balance (more positives for them than negatives), and that’s what they care about.

    2. There was no promoting of any White Supremacist Theory and if you think there was go back to kindergarten and learn how to read and write again. Your comments are always stupid and condescending. Grow up.

      1. @Marshall

        You think that it is a matter of opinion whether the Sandy Hook massacre was a false flag operation or that the Trump followers who yelled “The Jews shall not replace us,” are not Anti-Semites/White Supremacusts?

        1. And what are democrat cult members chanting “Pigs in a Blanket, Fry ‘Em Like Bacon!”?

          1. How do you know they’re Democrats (not socialists, Green Party, independents, unregistered, …)?

          2. I’m glad you agree that Trump supporters are as bad as those people who chanted “Pigs in a Blanket…”

  11. Ms. Tlaib is herself often intentionally racist.

    But, a 25 year veteran mistaking her gun for a Taser suggests an unacceptable level of incompetence. Woman should not ever have carried a gun.

    The original reason for the stop appears to have been air fresheners hanging from the rear view mirror – a laughable “crime “.

    That suggests overpolicing as a result of overcriminalization.

    Cops don’t write laws. They only enforce the laws that legislators like Ms. Tlaib write.

    I think that politicians ought to consider their contribution to the situation.

    And we voters need to stop electing officials who criminalize air fresheners on mirrors.

    1. “Cops don’t write laws. They only enforce the laws that legislators like Ms. Tlaib write.”

      Rep. Tlaib lives in Michigan. She has no responsibility for the state laws in Minnesota.

      “we voters need to stop electing officials who criminalize air fresheners on mirrors.”

      Yep. NBC says “he also ran afoul of a Minnesota law that prohibits motorists from hanging air fresheners and other items from their rearview mirrors.” But that’s not why he was stopped. Brooklyn Center Police Chief Tim Gannon: “He was pulled over for having an expired registration on the vehicle. When the officer went over, an item hanging from the rearview mirror was spotted.” When they ran Wright’s info, they also discovered that “a “gross misdemeanor warrant” for Wright’s arrest had been issued.”

    2. No, the original reason for the stop was expired tabs. Thousands of people of all races get pulled over each year for expired tabs, and they somehow manage to survive. Wright would have too if he hadn’t tried to run after the cops learned there was a warrant out for his arrest — ironically, for running from police last June when they caught him with an illegal firearm.

      1. Ruining from the police for having an illegal firearm would be a felony warrant/s. He had a misdemeanor warrant so seems like you’re not being truthful or are misinformed.

      2. “there was a warrant out for his arrest — ironically, for running from police last June when they caught him with an illegal firearm.”

        No, that’s not what the warrant was for. I hope you can admit your mistake.

        “[Brooklyn Center Police Chief] Gannon said Monday that Wright was initially stopped after officers saw his car’s tabs were expired. After officers ran his name, they found an outstanding gross misdemeanor warrant. … The one outstanding warrant for Wright’s arrest, Hennepin County authorities confirmed, was issued after the young man failed to appear for a hearing on April 2. The court date was to deal with a gross misdemeanor charge dating to last summer, when Wright allegedly got caught carrying a pistol without a permit and fled from a peace officer. … Arthur Martinez, a public defender who represented Wright, said he believed his client had never received notice of the scheduled appearance—and said that the court had not informed him either. “He obviously didn’t get it, and no one notified me, and a date came up for April 2nd for 2:30 in the afternoon, and him not knowing about it, didn’t show up, and there was a warrant issued for his arrest,” said Martinez, who shared an image of the warrant with The Daily Beast that shows that the judge set bail at a $3,000 bond or $500 in cash.”
        https://www.thedailybeast.com/daunte-wrights-mom-says-minnesota-police-killed-her-son-over-an-air-freshener-violation

  12. For all of those who want to easily forgive the cop and pass this off as an innocent accident, ask your self if you would get let off if you shot someone and then claimed that you just meant to tase them?

    1. It’s either unintentional or it’s not. Do you have proof it was not an accident? Do you have proof that after decades on the force and even though she’s being recorded that she decided, in two seconds, to hatch a plan to kill a man and then claim it was an accident?

      1. My point is that if any non-cop did this no one would care that much if it was intentional or not, you are going to prison either way. Other cops who did this also went to prison so lets hope she does as well.

      2. As a cop with 25 years on the force who is supposedly “well trained” in telling the difference between a taser and a firearm shouldn’t have made that mistake. Tasers have a bright yellow body vs. a firearm which is a dull black color. Tasers have been around for years. Surely she had a pretty good idea where her taser was holstered and where her firearm was holstered. 25 years carrying those shouldn’t have resulted in a mistake. A mistake should still carry serious consequences. Especially when someone is killed.

        1. Humans are prone to error. When I had a short stint at a large chemical plant I questioned them about the accident rate. They figured out approximately the number of days of work there were before there was an accident. Incentives were tried to reduce the accident rate. A prize to all employees was given if after a certain length of time no accidents occurred and then as the number of days increased the prize got bigger. People were incentivized to share their near mistakes so that one of those mistakes didn’t lead to an accident

          The carrot instead of the stick approach seemed to have value.

          Compare that to medical malpractice where the stigma is so great physicians do not talk to one another about their mistakes. That means mistakes that could be prevented aren’t.

          The type of ignorance Svelaz displays is counter productive to the goal reducing mistakes. Typical lefty. All Talk but no knowledge or experience.

          1. S. Meyer, funny you mention working at a chemical plant. I have worked at multiple chemical plants in Texas city and Houston for a decade. Those incentive programs you mention were really bad. The idea was a good one, but the incentive which grew over time only discouraged workers from reporting incidents in order to get the biggest reward. It created an atmosphere of “don’t rock the boat”. Any report would count against the incentive.

            Humans make mistakes and there are consequences. Doctors who make mistakes suffer increasing malpractice insurance premiums as a consequence. That’s why you see ridiculous amounts of testing in order to avoid any mistakes.

            A cop mistakenly killing someone because she pulled the wrong tool doesn’t get off with an , “ oops my bad”. It was mistake. It was a serious mistake nevertheless and such mistakes merit serious consequences.

            1. “Those incentive programs you mention were really bad. The idea was a good one, but the incentive which grew over time only discouraged workers from reporting incidents in order to get the biggest reward.”

              Svelaz, that is interesting. My job was intended to be of limited duration and a long time ago so I can’t comment on the long term benefits of such a plan. Based on all your previous comments I am hesitant to accept what you say one way or the other.

              The point of the comment was that accidents happen and are somewhat predictable. Whether it be a chemical worker, a doctor or a cop we have to accept it as a fact that even the best can make mistakes because they are human. No one is saying that there should’t be penalties, but your type of talk causes more harm than good. There is a sweet spot that your type of rhetoric prevents from being noticed.

          2. “The type of ignorance Svelaz displays is counter productive to the goal reducing mistakes. Typical lefty. All Talk but no knowledge or experience.”

            “Typical” S. Meyer.

            He complains about people insulting others, but he’s one of the worst offenders. And it’s hard for him to get through a comment without crying “lefty.”

            1. Anonymous, all you want to do is troll and fight. If you added content, that would at least create a reason for discussion. You don’t. Do you know why? Because you are Anonymous the Stupid. As we have seen in your responses to John Say, you have little to offer, and most of what you offer is wrong.

              The discussion was about humans being prone to error and ways to manage that human problem. Did you touch upon it? No. You provided the typical nonsense that can only be provided by Anonymous the Stupid.

                1. Anonymous the Stupid, keep trying to make yourself appear significant. In the process your Stupidity grows while you become less and less significant.

    2. Similar question to Molly’s: If it was one black person shooting another black person (whether accidental or intentional), would we all be talking about it?

  13. Every Single politician that calls for abolishing the police, needs to immediately lose police protection. And The police chief where the politician lives needs to publicly issue a statement that they will not let any officer respond to any call from them. Give them zero protection. Including the local Sheriff of such said county.

  14. “There is evidence that the shooting may have been a “confused weapon” case where an officer mistakingly grabs his service weapon rather than his taser.”

    *Her* weapon. The officer has been identified by law enforcement as Kim Potter, a woman. She may have meant to grab her taser, but the state’s policy is apparently for officers to wear their gun next to their dominant hand and their taser next to their non-dominant hand, so that’s a hard mistake to make, especially for a 26 year veteran officer.
    https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/crime-and-courts/6980836-Brooklyn-Center-chief-Cop-pulled-gun-not-Taser-shot-Daunte-Wright-by-mistake-with-video

    1. You just admitted she may have made a mistake, then you go on to insulate she most likely didn’t. You added nothing of worth to the conversation.

  15. It would behoove her to keep her mouth shut. But she’s never going to do that because she is a “prejudicial judge-mental-idiot.”

    Thank you Tucker Carlson.

  16. 25 years experience and the officer did not know the difference between a glock and a taser. He was killed for two misdemeanors! Two misdemeanors! Accident?

    1. Yes, accident. Ye arm chair judge. Ye, wasn’t on-site. So ye have zero right to pass judgement. Re-read Johnathan Turley’s article until it sinks in.

    2. So you think, knowing she’s being recorded, that she came up with this diabolical plan in less than two seconds so she could senselessly commit murder and get away with it?

  17. This is why there should be an IQ test for our political class.
    But then again, anyone with any morals and ethics would stay away from law and focus on a STEM field.

    1. STEM? Right, the sciences and big tech are full of ethics and morals, lol. That’s a good one!

    1. Imagine having the “smarts” to call for getting rid of police…as you work behind a police barricade.

      How does the left square the circle of having Tlaib calling to end all policing and jails with AOC worrying about having Ted Cruz murder her?

    2. Apparently they are…police met out punishment, capital punishment, on the street. He was killed for two misdemeanors!

Leave a Reply