Winston Smith, Jr. was shot and killed in Minneapolis on Thursday by officers involved with a U.S. Marshals Service task force as they attempted to arrest the 32-year-old Black man.
The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, which is leading the investigation in this case, said law enforcement members serving on the U.S. Marshals’ joint North Star Fugitive Task Force were alerted to the location of a man who had a warrant out for a felony firearms violation. Members of the task force “made contact with him” on the top level of the parking ramp in Uptown “in an attempt to take him into custody.” According to the BCA, “at one point a Hennepin County sheriff’s deputy and a Ramsey County sheriff’s deputy serving on the task force discharged their weapons, striking the man.” Smith died at the scene.
Speakers at a press conference Friday asked for anyone who has cellphone footage footage at the shooting to come forward with it, but no video footage of the incident has been released yet.
In other recent police killings, footage from body cameras worn by officers has played a critical role in showing what happened. But that won’t be coming in this case: The U.S. Marshals do not wear body cameras, and they prohibit local cops on their task force from wearing them.
Why the Marshals were involved
The U.S. Marshals Service is the enforcement arm of the federal courts and is under the direction of the Attorney General. Marshals are responsible for seeking fugitives, serving arrest warrants and transporting federal prisoners.
Marshals have been credited with capturing some of America’s most wanted fugitives, including people accused of killing police officers and drug cartel leaders. But the agency has also been involved with lower-level suspects, including people accused of crimes that did not involve serious physical injuries, like drug possession.
[image_credit]Facebook[/image_credit][image_caption]Winston Smith, Jr.[/image_caption]
In Minnesota, the U.S. Marshals team responsible for Smith’s death is called the Northstar Fugitive Task Force. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Task Force includes members of local, state and federal law enforcement who team up to “arrest the state’s most violent fugitives.”
According to a preliminary investigation, the BCA said that “at one point a Hennepin County sheriff’s deputy and a Ramsey County sheriff’s deputy serving on the task force discharged their weapons, striking the man.” No official statements have confirmed whether U.S. Marshalls Service officers fired shots during the attempted arrest.
The Feds follow different rules
Task force officers (TFOs) are state and local law enforcement officers who receive “special deputations” from the U.S. Marshals Service. While on the task force TFOs can exercise U.S. Marshals’ authorities such as being able to cross jurisdictional lines and, as in this case, refrain from wearing body cameras.
In October 2020, the Department of Justice issued a policy that would permit TFOs to wear body cameras on federal task forces. In February of this year, the Marshals Service began to “phase-in” the policy, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The task force involved with Smith’s death had not yet implemented the new policy.
In addition to more lax rules on body cameras, the U.S. Marshals and task force members are even more difficult to hold accountable than average police officers if something goes wrong. According to an investigation by USA Today and The Marshall Project, no marshal has been prosecuted after a shooting as of 2020. Local district attorneys don’t have the legal power to prosecute federal agents, and the Justice Department can shield them from litigation.
Early stages of the BCA investigation found evidence Smith fired his weapon from inside the vehicle; the BCA reported crime scene personnel “recovered a handgun as well as spent cartridge cases from inside the driver’s compartment.” It’s still unclear whether the gun was fired during this encounter or not. The investigation is still underway.
At a news conference Friday, Minnesota Justice Coalition President Johnathon McClellan questioned why law enforcement would not want to release footage if they believe their actions were justified, saying law enforcement may have something to hide. The Minnesota Justice Coalition provides non-litigatory services for family members affected by issues of police misconduct.
“It is important that we have transparency and accountability,” McClellan said. “We also question these task forces that produce cowboy cops that make up their own rules and circumvent best practices, lack proper oversight and display patterns and practices that terrorize and do not protect and serve.”
Opting out of the task force
Not all Minnesota law enforcement agencies participate in these federally coordinated task forces. St. Paul police have not been taking part in federal task forces since 2019 (along with many other cities). After St. Paul Police Chief Todd Axtell notified federal officials that the department’s officers were required to wear body cameras, the acting U.S. Marshal for Minnesota said local officers needed to follow marshal procedures. Axtell then pulled St. Paul officers from the task force.
Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office implemented body cameras for over 400 employees in September 2019, but did follow the marshal procedures requiring them to turn the cameras off during task force activities.
After the killing of Smith, that’s changing: The Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office signed an addendum Friday that modifies a 2014 agreement with the U.S. Marshals Fugitive Task Force, requiring any Ramsey County deputy who is federally deputized and assigned to the U.S. Marshals Fugitive Task Force to wear and use a body camera. But Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher released a statement Monday evening announcing he has pulled his deputies from the task force after learning the federal agency would continue to prohibit body camera use.
“Despite regular requests from local law enforcement, the normal refrain from the Marshals office has been and continues to be ‘We’re working on the problem.’ Neither the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office nor the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office was offered the opportunity to use body cameras until last Friday in the wake of Winston Smith’s death,” Fletcher said in a statement released Monday evening.
Meanwhile, there are some efforts at the federal level to change marshal policy. The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which was passed in the House in March, includes a bill which would require federal officers to use body cameras and dash cameras in marked federal police vehicles. The bill is currently under negotiation in the Senate.
Minneapolis saw protests Friday and over the weekend after Smith was killed. The city has been on edge since last year’s death of George Floyd and since the police shooting of Black motorist Daunte Wright in nearby Brooklyn Center in April, both of which were followed by mass protests.
At the Friday press conference, Smith’s family criticized law enforcers’ depiction of Smith and said that while he was trying to “turn over a new leaf,” police were “using his past to tarnish his character.”
“My brother was kind,” said Tieshia Floyd, Smith’s sister. “No, he wasn’t perfect. None of us are… I will protect my brother’s name until justice has been served.”
The use of passive language by the cops suggests something is very wrong, as we have seen in the past with so many other police killings, these statements go out of their way to make it appear that the killing was both inevitable and not really anybody’s responsibility.
Regardless of Mr. Smith’s past history, there was a whole task force of cops on the top level of the parking ramp with him. He wasn’t going anywhere, and a little patience and deescalation almost certainly would have allowed for a peaceful resolution. But we’ll never know now.
A very good point.
If you shoot at a cop they will rightfully shoot back.
In this case a little reasoned thought by the Marshalls could have gone a long way: top floor of a parking ramp, all exits blocked, “come out with your hands on your head” and wait him out.
If this is applied consistently we save lives and millions of dollars in settlements.
It all goes back to the Bob Kroll “warrior mentality”. No Bob Kroll, no tolerance for Derek Chauvin behavior. Bob Kroll is the root cause and he skates off to early retirement.
How do you know how the cops behaved? The idea that he could have been reasoned with is pure speculation. The cops were arresting a violent felon – who ultimately shot at them during the encounter.
We may never know how they behaved. The Marshalls are going to say one thing, and it is likely that any witnesses will say something else.
This is why body cameras should be required.
I agree. And apparently they were prohibited, but that is going to change. Body cameras here would likely put a quick end to this nonsense about blaming the cops when the suspect shot at them.
They apparently did approach the vehicle on foot for a close encounter with the suspect. Instead, block all the exits, don’t put anyone in the line of fire and wait him out. A 25 million dollar settlement could cover a lot of overtime. As I said, you shoot at a cop they rightfully shoot back. At the front end of a planned event like this you identify the worst scenario and the best and make the latter happen.
First of all, the city isn’t going to pay out a nickel for this shooting. The big settlements are when the cops break the law or use excessive force. You get killed in a shootout with the cops, you get zero.
You also have no idea what went down. Its pure speculation that the cops provoked this guy. Maybe the cops did everything right. But even if it could have been handled better, I don’t know how you second guess when someone shoots at you.
Let’s read a little closer.
1. I have no problem what so ever with cops shooting back when shot at.
2. I do not think the cops did anything to provoke this guy.
3. He was a known, violent felon with a history of gun issues.
4. Every one of these police shootings is different and to generalize is difficult.
5. This particular one was far less spontaneous than the others: ie: planning is possible.
So, my point remains, when these guys get together and ask:
“So who wants to go up and knock on the window of the gun carrying violent felon in order to arrest him?”
The answer should be: What are the alternatives?
And strip away all the rhetoric from both sides on this issue and the meaningful point is: can we do things better? Better for Justine Damond, Philandro Castille, George Floyd and better for the cops being shot at? I think so and a first step is ridding law enforcement of the Bob Krolls of the world who think they are going to war every day in place they would never live in and only keep the job for daily adrenaline rushes and a nice early retirement. And NO, I am not in anyway making an assumption about the character of the officers who were on the parking ramp that day. I am only suggesting that maybe the warrior path was taken when a better alternative existed.
I think you can and should do much better in cases like Floyd, Castile and Damond. The police acted terribly and illegally in those cases. Thats why they resulted in criminal charges and large civil settlements.
My issue is assuming that every police shooting is bad. The people out protesting this one are undermining police reform. They are destroying the credibility of the movement.
When a violent felon goes on video saying he wants to kill cops and then shoots at cops when being arrested, the idea that the cops were to blame is the argumentative equivalent of Giulliani and the Pillow guy claiming that Trump won the election.
The problem here is the lack of body cameras. In the case of Dolal Idd – a violent criminal from a family of violent criminal – the camera footage resolved the issue for all but the most delusional.
People are upset about gun violence, about when children are killed, but don’t seem to want cops to enforce gun laws. You can pass all the gun control laws you want, but the cops still need to enforce them.
The same is true with violence against women – this guy Smith, Jamar Clark, Daunte Wright – all had convictions or pending charges for violence against women. Yet somehow the cops are the bad guys (to be clear Wright should not have been shot – my issue was with the idea he should not have been stopped and was a “sweet kid”).
We agree on every single point: no issues what so ever.
My only point is that sometimes you have a rouge cop with no regard for human life with criminal behavior (Chauvin) and sometimes you have poor training and poor situational decision making with no illegal intent (Wright, Damond and Castille) and sometimes you have unavoidable and justifiable police action (Clark, Idd). Our point of difference seems to be that I see Smith as leaning more to the second circumstance than the last one. Great minds can disagree.
We both likely see the irony of two alleged previous Daunte Wright shooting victims ( a murder and a car jacking with shooting the victim) now filing suit to get in position to get their share of any Brooklyn Park settlement with the Wright family.
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/daunte-wright/lawsuit-claims-daunte-wright-carjacked-man-weeks-before-death/89-bb5cf7f9-d7b6-4327-a514-5b97e926f329
And now as the sensitivity crowd descends on me for my uncaring attitude about Daunte Wright, I will say I care more for the innocent kids killed in the cross fire of too many criminals with too many guns who see the slightest sign of disrespect as reason to open fire, collateral damage be damned. All evidence points to Daunte Wright being one of these people. And Winston Smith too.
I think we have reached a consensus, Edward.
I wouldn’t worry about Wright, who is now accused of shooting two different people and then choking a woman while holding a gun to her head. Two things can be true at once: 1) Wright was a horrible degenerate of a human being and 2) he should not have died in that traffic stop.
100% agree.
You keep assuming Smith fired at the cops. We have many man many examples of people dying in a hail of gunfire when cops “think” something that didn’t happen happened or was about to happen. You can’t keep saying: “we don’t know… but we know”.
Shellcasings in the car, or are they planted,
We don’t know how he behaved or whether he could have been “talked down.” But then, it appears to be whole point of not wearing body cameras, doesn’t it? Law enforcement is given the benefit of the doubt in the case of missing evidence. It’s time to stop providing the benefit of the doubt. After all, the cops would say to someone who refuses a search, “why not, if you’ve got nothing to hide?” I’m beginning to assume that refusal to wear body cameras–and making local officials that work with them also go without–is a sign that they have something to hide.
No, I don’t think that every person who dies at the hands of law enforcement is innocent. But then, I also believe that every person who dies at the hands of law enforcement deserves absolute proof that they “had it coming” (personally, I don’t believe that the police should be justified in using lethal force except in extraordinarily rare cases, anyway).
How do you know “almost certainly” that any interaction would have resolved peacefully?
Mr. Smith wanted and embraced violence. On social media he claimed he was a “warrior” and to get his “gun and body armor”. These facts suggest that Mr. Smith would have reason to behave in a violent manner to attack the federal US Marshalls or others (and not “the cops” as you put it).
Smith was without a doubt a violent felon with a history of gun violence.
If the Marshalls and their task force are one deck down in the ramp and the question is:
“Who wants to approach the car?”
Wait a minute, everything points to this guy having a gun and using it. Do we have an alternative to getting within shooting distance of this guy?
Well, yes we do. Let’s take it and we all go home tonight.
Was he utterly alone in the ramp, are you willing t ok risk a hostage situation?
Marshals and deputies were involved, not the police. If someone points as gun at you, it’s hard to deescalate. It’s not like in the movies. Mr. Smith did have statements on social media of not being allowed to be taken in by law enforcement and going down with a fight.
There should have been body cameras.
He was given probation and conditions instead of prison. They do not just put out warrants on people without first trying to meet with the person(usually multiple efforts). Maybe when a person is given probation, there should be a clear and firm explanation of what happens when they fail those conditions.
So, if it turns our that the police returned fire from Smith, will we get an apology from all the people pointing fingers at the police?
We need to know more about how the task force “made contact” with Mr. Smith. Did they approach with guns drawn and multiple officers screaming contradictory commands thereby escalating from the get go? My guess is this was the approach, but it is possible the task force treated Mr. Smith with a certain level of human respect. I would argue that triggering the fight/flight reflex does not serve public safety as it introduces unpredictability in how people respond. If the task group was busy playing at being bad asses then i’m still gonna blame them- no matter who fired the first shot.
Mr. Smith sure didn’t treat his victims with human respect.
“For years leading up to his death, Smith made statements across social media platforms vowing to shoot police officers if he were ever to be apprehended, encouraging his followers to bring guns and bombs to protests and outlining tactics he believed would be most effective to kill members of law enforcement. He also frequently suggested that he was meeting with like-minded people and taking tangible steps towards these aims.
“Get ready for war,” Smith told his followers via Instagram in mid-April.
“Motherfuckers are finna move on these ‘ops,” he continued, using a slang term that means people would attack police.
“All the shooters, suit up,” he ordered. “Lace your boots up, it’s war fucking time. Bring your gun to the protest, bring them fucking bombs and rocket launchers and all that shit.””
I watched an Instagram video this guy made and its full of this kind of stuff. If you think this ended up this way because the cops were reckless or he wasn’t treated with respect, you are completely delusional.
Shooting at police neither shouldn’t nor has to result in the police killing the suspect/assailant. Right here in our backyard, not even a year ago, in Bloomington, a white man killed his wife and then killed two children at his neighbor’s home, barricaded himself inside his own home, and shot at police from inside dozens of times upon their arrival (police estimate up to 40 shots).
He was apprehended alive to stand trial.
That’s an absolutely ridiculous assertion. While there are instances in which people have not been killed after attempting to murder the police, it shouldn’t be assumed that if you try to kill the police that you aren’t in mortal danger. They have every right to defend themselves against violence. What does it say about their humanity that you believe “it’s okay, if they get shot at”.
No, it’s not ok that they get shot at. But it’s kind of what they signed up for–their lives for the protection and service of the greater citizenship. There are certain careers where those who wish to be in them accept the fact that they might not come home at night, and make peace with it. If you can’t, you’re in the wrong career.
Also, did you know that in 2019, of the 89 police officers killed in action, nearly half of those deaths were due to accidents? So yeah, being a cop is dangerous, but it seems that it’s nearly as much to do with being careless as interacting with criminals.
Meanwhile, did you know that, in 2019, 1 in fewer than 13 homicides were at the hands of a police officer? That is, if a person dies of homicide, their odds of being killed by a law enforcement officer is about 8%. That seems a bit high. One might ask whether the number of homicides actually prevented as a result of an officer killing someone even reaches the same level of significance. Meanwhile, nearly half of murders go unsolved. Perhaps if the police spent more time finding criminals than shooting at the ones they did find, we’d have an overall reduction in death?
The idea that its dangerous to be a cop should not be used to explain a cop shooting an unarmed or (in most cases) unprovoked person. But when someone is shooting at cops, cops can shoot back. That isn’t irrational fear. That is actual danger.
Actual danger /to the cop/. Not necessarily to the public, especially if it’s the cop that escalates the situation. If you go by the idea that if something bad happens to someone in the line of their chosen career, and it’s a well-documented risk, you’re justified in an equal and opposite reaction, you’d have chaos. That’s why wildlife officers are WAY more likely to be murdered in the line of duty than cops, yet much less likely to kill someone else. It’s a risk they take, and though their lives aren’t any less valuable than a cop’s, they don’t get all trigger happy when they spot a “bad guy” even though said “bad guy” is much more likely to be armed…and skilled at using their weapon. That’s because danger should be assessed holistically, rather than focused on the person who chose the risk.
Someone who shoots at a cop is almost certainly a danger to the public. But the idea that cops can’t shoot back at people shooting at them is completely absurd. Cops are expected to take risks. They are not expected to get shot at and do nothing.
I’m guessing that guy hadn’t made videos declaring war on cops.
He was in his house barricaded. Meaning police had plenty of cover and at one point were able to try to negotiate. They did end up wounding him. They also were not sure if anyone else was in the home and had time to get a bobcat to assist.
Every department/agency has its own rules and resources and comparing them to each other, usually misses the full picture.
We also don’t know if the marshals made previous attempts to arrest him.
Once again, if we are going to take gun control seriously, we have to pursue and arrest criminals like Smith. And when those criminals shoot at the police when they are being arrested, the police can and should shoot back.
Giving airtime to this kind of nonsense distracts from actual police abuses. The people protesting this one are undermining police reform.
It is too bad we don’t actually know who shot first, or how the encounter unfolded.
We know that Police statements often contain flat out lies, or gross minimization of the events to make the cops look good. Given the events of the past several years here in the Twin Cities and elsewhere in the country it is no longer tenable to assuming the cops are automatically the good guys.
We do know that this guy shot at the police, and I’m not sure how there is any way that is justified. We also know he was a wanted felon, and like Daunte Wright, a man who engages in violence against women. I feel pretty confident about who the good guys here were.
Same. Too bad none of them were in that parking structure.
I beg to differ. With all the children who have been killed lately, cops who risk their lives – and got shot at in this case – trying to get violent felons off the street are good guys in my book.
What was particularly odd was the fact that most media outlets knew nothing or said nothing about Mr. Wright’s attempted murder of 16-year-old Caleb Livingston until after the protests. Why was he not charged for murder? Wright shot Caleb in the head in 2019, why has our judiciary failed to recognize that incident, did Caleb’s life not matter? Does society truly not care if it doesn’t involve in the police?
So you have statistical proof of “flat out lies” or are you asserting without anecdotes your belief that police lie and are unreliable (all the time). I would be interested to hear your thoughts on if you believe multiple federal police from several agencies would lie. It’s interesting to hear the level of distrust in Democrat managed police forces.
I’d recommend you to the twitter feed of T. Greg Doucette. he has mounds of links show police lies across the country. Hell, there’s reason to believe the LA sheriff’s department had multiple internal gangs that did whatever they wanted to do. It doesn’t seem to matter which political tribe is ostensibly in charge- cops are gonna cop.
Are there ‘good cops’ who don’t lie, plant evidence, or otherwise act as tin pot dictators? I’m sure there are, but since I don’t know who is who, and there appears to be no internal pressure to reform, I’m going to go the route of caution and ask for hard evidence before I trust any statements put out by any police department.
So your comment is “all police are the same”? I mean, taken at face value are four different police forces including those led specifically by Democrats not trustworthy? If we cannot trust federal police, how does that reflect on other events in which your assertion that “the police lie” factor into the discussion.
Let me try again on the assumption you aren’t deliberately misinterpreting my comment. I don’t care which political party is “leading” the police. Democratic, Republican, Green, Libertarian, whatever.
As a society, we have chosen to give the power of life or death to the police. We need to expect and have provable high standards for the profession. There needs to be zero tolerance inside and out of the profession for those who cannot meet those standards day in and day out.
There is widespread, incontrovertible evidence that police in America routinely lie, cheat, steal, assault, sexually abuse, plant evidence, etc… Until our policing organizations clean up their act I see no reason to give any officer the benefit of the doubt. It doesn’t matter to me which badge they are wearing- police department, sheriff department, US Marshall, FBI.
Maybe it’s only a few bad apples- but in my opinion they’ve spoiled the whole barrel.
“There is widespread, incontrovertible evidence that police in America routinely lie, cheat, steal, assault, sexually abuse, plant evidence”
Cite your source for this statement, because your OPINION is this. It is absolutely is not “widespread” or “incontrovertible”. That is a spurious and politically biased comment. Yes there are examples and anecdotes of police misconduct. But the assertion that all police are corrupt is an overt distortion of the truth intended to support policies such as defunding or eliminating the police even though there is no evidence to ground this perspective in any factual basis.
There are an estimated 800,000 law enforcement officers in the United States according to the National Law Enforcement Memorial Fund and the FBI states that there are approximately 700,000 sworn officers in 2019. USA Today’s investigation implies there are certainly outliers, criminals whom were employed as police yes. The articles notes 200,000 allegations. Allegations aren’t proof of misconduct and there are a lot of people who do anything to get payback for being caught by police. The USA Today author’s data shows that of the 30,000 police that were fired or “decertified” the largest group of them were fired for drugs or alcohol use. Which is somewhat ironic given that these roles are traditionally high stress and would rationally lead to drug or alcohol abuse.
We shouldn’t need statistics to have a problem with police lies. If it rises to the level of significance, it’s already completely unacceptable. No lies should be tolerated from the police. That the liars aren’t fired for their lies doesn’t make the ones that don’t lie look too good, either.
Yes, let’s all FORCE everyone to accept our assertions at face value. Sound familiar?
You expect the cops wait to be shot at before responding? Even when a known violent felon brandishes a gun
For what it’s worth, ‘Winston Smith’ was the protagonist in George Orwell’s -1984-.
The contemporary one has his death shrouded in mystery, due to a lack of observation.
Kind of ironic.
A little off point, but folks fight like hell to keep cameras out of our streets, we however make sure we get 20th century fox film production start to end of shift coverage of the good guys in action. Now how about employers film all their employee’s start to stop while at work, (invasion of privacy?) But folks have all the excuses in the world that the bad guys were really good guys, even though they have a significant history of repeat bad decision making! This is like T**** syndrome, good is bad, bad is good, up is down down is up etc. etc. etc. Do we hire police with the expectation that we hired the wrong folks and they are going to do bad? Perhaps we should hire the criminals, because it appears that they are always in the right and the police in the bad!
it’s almost like there is a difference between pervasive surveillance regardless of circumstance and specific evidence of armed police interactions with the public. Hmmm, I wonder why that could be? Ooh, I know- because time and again the video reveals police lies about what happened.
This article omits that Mr. Smith posted numerous terroristic threats including inciting public violence against the police through the threat of gun violence, bombing, and harassing the police in public.
Mr. Smith has a lengthy criminal history and had indicated in social media video and Facebook posts that he wanted to commit violence against the police.
Given the fact that Mr. Smith literally said he wanted to shoot the police, and that he had a history of violence, that the federal US Marshalls, BATFE, Hennepin County and Ramsey County Sheriffs were attempting to apprehend him and that he had a gun on him and had attempted to shoot the police – that the shooting was justified.
In addition, far left social media has already created a campaign in which they claim, without evidence, that Mr. Smith was “assassinated”. A website now exists with this assertions and it is clear that the threat of violence, rioting and burning is based on emotion rather the above facts.
People say and do all sorts of stupid stuff- that doesn’t make it open season on them. Again, the cops had him trapped and they could have waited him out, EVEN IF he started the shooting (which we don’t know).
Assassination seems an assertion too far, but on the other hand, there is no evidence that it wasn’t a straight up extra-judicial execution. Because there is no evidence. We don’t know what happened, we only have the self serving statements from the people who did the killing.
This might have been “justified” because it “followed procedure” but that doesn’t mean that the procedures are correct. We should expect better than the bare minimum from our police.
No one said anything about open season except you. Because you are projecting your personal view on what happened. You have no idea whether “he was trapped”. The Mr. Smith had a gun on him, clearly had used it and was in a car.
The idea that Federal Policy should just “wait them out” works only in situations in which there is cover (which there wasn’t) and a rational amount of time to ensure the safety of the police and bystanders (which there wasn’t). The idea that the police are out “hunting” people is ridiculous assertion. When a suspect starts shooting at the police, they have every right to defend themselves.
And a hostage ready and waiting
And the desired results you appear to be achieving is, let all the criminals run free because our law enforcement will no longer put their butts on the line because no one has their back, or will endlessly armchair quarterback their every move, Congratulation on achieving the “great Lawless society” were the criminal are all safe from prosecution but society is not safe from the criminals.
You do know there are ~ 25 unsolved murders in Minneapolis, and who should go after those guys? That’s right those dead folks don’t count because the person pulling the trigger wase’t wearing a blue shirt!
We have evidence that a guy who made videos about wanting to kill cops fired a gun at cops.
“People say and do all sorts of stupid stuff- that doesn’t make it open season on them.” Oh yeah I get this, driving the wrong way on the interstate at 100 MPH with a BAC of .3 should not be a death sentence (because it is just “stupid stuff”) and of course its the boys in blue that we should be blaming! Or driving around town doing drive by shootings is just “stupid stuff” but hey a 6 year old gets a death sentence, and a 10 year old, and etc. etc. etc. etc. but its just “stupid stuff”!
Has Ben Crump shown up yet?
Ben Crump knows there isn’t any money to be made on this one.
Here is the Instagram video Smith made a couple months ago where he talks about going to war against cops. Watch this and tell me again about how cops should have tried to de-escalate and treat him with respect.
https://youtu.be/RvbAftCj5rA
The video has nothing to do with how cops should do their jobs. People post all sorts of stupid stuff on the internet. Our police should still be expected to arrest people and not kill them. As referenced elsewhere in the comments, we know they can do so- even well armed and actively violent suspects. Apparently just not young black men.
I can’t believe that it is a controversial idea to expect professionalism and standards from the police.
I can’t believe that the bad guys are now always the good guys and the good guys are always the bad guys!
On the contrary it absolutely does factor in how police should approach an individual. Did we not learn from the January 6th Capital Riots that social media posts are an indicator of the potential for violent behavior?
Of course it does. This was a violent felon who beats women and has committed gun crimes. The facts he made videos advocating violence against cops absolutely should have been a consideration when arresting him. The idea he would not have shot at the cops if they had asked nicely is ludicrous.
And again, there is no evidence whatsoever that the police were unprofessional here.
The expectation is if you are surrounded by federal agents, you are a wanted felon, if you pull the trigger, aiming at a cop, you’re going to die. Doesn’t matter what color you are. Those cops are going to protect themselves.
Unlike George Floyd case, there was some form of response and a gun was involved. And this, in no way, excuses the rioting and looting. This nonsense is killing a once vibrant commercial center, and terrorizing people who live in the area.
The Star Tribune’s article from posted yesterday titled: Protest leaders say it’s important for Uptown to understand that police accountability is their problem – states that:
“The U.S. Marshals Service, which led the task force that killed Smith, has said officers shot him after he fired a gun from his car as they tried to arrest him on the fifth floor of the ramp on a warrant of felon in possession of a gun.”
The chronology has been publicly stated/asserted by the police(s) in this case outright now.
I don’t like police, but resist arrest? That’s what lawyers are for. Better to have one when you are alive rather than your relatives to have one when you are dead.
Just sayin’
I see the right wing character assassination is in full bore. Apparently I should always take the cops at their word, and assume that since the Mr. Smith had previously committed crimes, and had “bad’ social media that he deserved to die.
There’s no room for nuance- no room to say hey, maybe the cops could have done better and apprehended Mr. Smith instead of killing him; no room to say that the lack of evidence as to what really happened is problematic; and definitely no room to question the narrative that if you have a badge, you must be a good guy.
Apparently innocent until proven guilty isn’t something we should concern ourselves with.
What character assassination? All of these facts are undisputed:
Smith made the videos. He is on his own video talking about killing cops.
He was convicted of aggravated robbery, in which he brutally beat a woman.
He shot at the cops when they came to arrest him.
You might want to check some of your “facts” as it seems the BCA is already pulling back on the claims that Mr. Smith shot first: https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2021/06/09/bca-not-aware-of-video-of-winston-smith-shooting-wont-identify-undercover-officers-who-fired/
“Officials said Smith, who was wanted for a felony firearms violation, wouldn’t surrender and pulled out a gun” First the cops say he shot first, now they are just saying he pulled a gun, I wonder where their story will change to later?
Yes he was convicted of aggravated assault 4 years ago, but per his family he was working to change his life and become a better person. He was a loving and devoted father.
He didn’t deserve to die, and he doesn’t deserve to be vilified after his death, but I suppose it is easier to tell oneself that he was irrevocably a bad person and therefore we don’t need to worry about it.
I didn’t say that he fired first, although I expect that is what happened. But he did fire, because they found shell casings from his gun.
“Yes he was convicted of aggravated assault 4 years ago, but per his family he was working to change his life and become a better person. He was a loving and devoted father.”
I honestly can’t tell if you are being sarcastic. I can’t imagine anyone who watched Smith’s recent videos calling for violence and killing cops saying something like that with a straight face. They said the same kind of thing about Duante Wright, who actually seems to have been a violent sociopath.
Smith didn’t deserve to die because he was a violent criminal and a terrible person. But if he shot at police, than his death is a likely, and justified outcome.
“He doesn’t deserve to die”
The police also don’t deserve to die, despite what protestors chant at rallies and scream in their faces. Was he really “turning his life around” or is that a cliché? He surely shouldn’t be viewed as a martyr hero as the left is portraying him on twitter. I certainly wouldn’t beatify an assaulter but I guess the left believes their use of cancellation needs to align with making a political point.
Nice try: “Apparently innocent until proven guilty isn’t something we should concern ourselves with.” guess from that perspective, it is not suppose to apply to the local boys in blue either! Think about it.
What even is your point? That we should take police statements at face value? That executing someone prior to trial is OK? The role of the police is supposed to be investigating crimes & apprehending people. Derek Chauvin and his ilk get fair trails. George Floyd and Winston Smith get murdered for being suspected of committing a crime and then get character assassination to boot.
The point is CLEAR you have all the police guilty before getting the facts, read your own comments dude. “The role of the police is supposed to be investigating crimes & apprehending people.” We get that, you don’t seem to understand the apprehending part of career criminals isn’t congenial nor accommodating. “get murdered for being suspected of committing a crime” the dude has a record, there is no “suspected” this is court proven, he was shot in the act of trying to “murder” sworn agents of our government to enforce the law, what is it you don’t get about law enforcement? Suppose he should have been able to take a couple of the blue shirts out before it was OK to shoot back and disarm him! Guy made stupid decisions and paid for it with his life, read your own stuff.
Urban legends grow fast from police shootings, remember “hands up don’t shoot” and that whole misinformation campaign? You have 2 options when it comes to crime, clean it up now or clean it up later. Portland mayor has decided that 13 months of unlawfulness is enough, he is trying to clean Portland up. The funny thing is many on the left that cheered him when he ordered a police stand down, now boo him.
It reminds me of Jimbo on South Park: “They’re coming right for me”
You have to make a distinction between cops fearing for their lives just doing their jobs (like Noor and Damond) and situations where people are actually shooting at them. In the latter case, the danger is real and the fear justified.
And now we have the witness in the car saying Smith did not fire a gun and was reaching for his phone.
Who knows?
Hopefully the BCA can prove if a shot(s) was fired from inside the car.
And even that will not have a time stamp of who fired first.
The US Marshalls must really be neanderthals to get into a mess like this.
Where is Marshall Sam Gerard when you need him?
Must be one of those Phone guns because the car had spent casings in it.
Of course his girlfreind in the car is going to say that –
And now a protester is dead:
“She was using her car as a street blockade, and another vehicle struck her vehicle and her vehicle struck her,” the 29-year-old brother said, who learned the details from police and his mother.
We’ll see if this is a Charlottesville kind if incident or just a random drunk driver plowing into a “street blockade”
The BCA needs to respond in a much more efficient manner in situations like this. The longer it drags out, the more suspicion builds that a false narrative is being built and the more we see protests like this one that killed a woman.
I’m going with the Occam’s Razor principle here:
1.Smith said it is time to go to war and kill some cops.
2. He is approached by multiple armed LEOs
3. He went to war and was KIA.
Yes, as much as I disagree with the reason they were protesting, I respect their right to protest (peacefully). It’s messed up that somebody killed that lady with their car. I posit this is an example of a failure of our justice system to stop someone who had f-i-v-e DWIs, was driving with a revoked license from endangering the public.