Police rightfully shot and killed a "man" trying to murder his neighbor in their apartment complex. He fired several shots into her apartment where she was making dinner for her children. Thankfully, and luckily, neither the women of her children were hurt. The suspect was then killed by a police sniper following a standoff.
Of course BLM decided to protest, because any time a black man is killed by police it's definitely because of racism. The distraught victim confronted the protestors and called them on their bullshit, to which she received a woman getting in her face and other protestors telling her, "You're alive, shut up!" Here's the YouTube clip. It's not a channel I follow, but I can't find a copy of this version of the video elsewhere so feel free to skip the host commentary and just watch the footage. The responses to his woman are flat out nauseating.
Whatever its origins (which are based on the "hands up, don't shoot" lie) and whatever the intentions of its followers BLM has become a disgusting organization and it can't fade into obscurity fast enough.
I've never understood the mob mentality - probably because I hate people and I hate crowds even more.
That said, I feel like the idiots have taken over a movement that had a perfectly fine goal and twisted it. I'd say I'm shocked, but that's human history.
Those ***** in that video are the worst kind of person (who isn't diddling kids in their down time).
(07-18-2022, 05:30 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I've never understood the mob mentality - probably because I hate people and I hate crowds even more.
I get the mindset, but never in a manner as serious as this. I don't care about baseball, but if my buddies and I spend $3 to go see a Pirates game I put on a $1 goodwill Pirates hat and gleefully join in with the booing the "bad call" when one of the Pirates players was clearly out by a mile. You know you are wrong, but being part of a group and having fun with it make it ok.
People apply that sort of "I know it's wrong, but we need to send a message" aspect in many ways. OJ and Case Anthony not guilty? Well, clearly they were, but we had to send a message to "the system" for being so ineffective. Biden won the 2020 election? Yeah, probably, but saying it was rigged is part of my MAGA identity. I live in PA and have zero connection to the Civil War...well yea, but I fly that flag to show I'm a rebel, damn it.
And so on and so forth. You want to be part of a group? You can't zig when they zag...you fall in line and you see it how they tell you to see it. Police shoot a black man for a legit reason? BLM revolts. Police shoot a black man for a less than legit reason? Back the Blue supports it. Was the shoot justified? Maybe, but we're gonna dig up something the individuals did or said at some point to justify our never-wavering viewpoint.
It isn't what you do, it's who you are and to which club you belong and who you need to please and bow to. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to renew my 3rd party cop out membership by saying "Two wings of the same bird" a few times. We're all full of shit, we're just noseblind to it.
(07-18-2022, 05:30 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I've never understood the mob mentality - probably because I hate people and I hate crowds even more.
That said, I feel like the idiots have taken over a movement that had a perfectly fine goal and twisted it. I'd say I'm shocked, but that's human history.
Those ***** in that video are the worst kind of person (who isn't diddling kids in their down time).
From the story it seems the protestors wanted to know why a sniper shot the guy they police had been negotiating with. I don't know why and I haven't seen the explanation yet.
Quote:Strong emotions were on display Saturday, as dozens of protesters filled the streets in Minneapolis, calling for justice in the deadly police shooting of Andrew Tekle Sundberg.
“What we’re here for is when Tekle was shot by the Minneapolis police and died,” Sundberg’s father, Mark, told reporters.
He and his wife Cindy, spoke outside the 21st Avenue South apartment building, where warrants say the 20-year-old was shot and killed by two police snipers early Thursday morning.
“We are all imperfect humans,” she said. “He did not deserve to be picked off like an animal from a rooftop.”
But nearby, Anabella Yarbrough — who says she and her two young children live across the hallway from Sundberg’s third floor apartment — showed up, appearing upset by the protest.
“He had six hours to choose life. I had two to five minutes to choose life,” Yarbrough, 24, declared. “Why didn’t you guys check on him to make sure he had proper help before this happened?”
On a social media post, she shared photos of bullet holes though her apartment door, a window frame, in the walls, and a spray can in her bathroom. Protestors marched near the apartment of a deadly police shooting on Saturday (KSTP). Yarbrough says she was cooking dinner for her children Wednesday night, when Sundberg began shooting.
“He started in the hallway shooting bullets into my unit,” she recalls. “Made his way into his unit and started firing while police were trying to get me and my kids. I literally almost died. You can see all the bullets he left in my unit.”
A neighbor who identified himself only as “Marcus,” says he heard the gunshots.
“She gets rescued by the police. She comes out and she looks petrified,” he remembered. “He shot into her apartment, missed her somehow with the grace of God, her and her kids.”
Minneapolis police say they responded after receiving information that Sundberg was firing shots inside the building. Court documents say officers found multiple live and spent rounds in the hallway, and bullet holes in the walls.
Sundberg’s parents expressed sorrow and apologized for what happened.
“My heart goes out to that woman,” Mark Sundberg explained. “She went through a very traumatic event with these bullets coming through her house. That will affect her for the rest of her life, that’ll affect her children for the rest of their lives.”
“I wish I could wrap my arms around her and tell her I am so sorry,” Cindy Sundberg added. “I’m so sorry for her pain I just grieve for her also.”
A statement by the City of Minneapolis says negotiations between police and Sundberg went on for six hours, before the police snipers shot him.
Police aren’t saying what prompted the sniper officers to open fire when they did.
In a statement, Jeff Storms, the Sundberg’s attorney, says the family has been given very little information — in his words, “why Tekle’s mental health crisis became a death sentence.”
Storms — who says the 20-year-old struggled with his mental health — says he has questions about the official narrative.
“We can ask the Minneapolis Police Department to do better, so we don’t have even more grieving families,” he says. “[The report] is written in a passive sense as if it just happened, and these things don’t happen. People take action. People take affirmative steps, and we were told none of those active, affirmative steps.”
In a release, Minneapolis police say they are working with the attorneys of Sundberg’s family, to enable them to view video associated with “the police response to the calls of shots fired, the active shooter situation, and the standoff that followed.” The department says its personnel are reviewing hundreds of hours of body cam video and audio.
Storms says he’s requested some of that footage, which he says could be released as early as next week.
Still, neighbors say the situation is troubling.
“(Yarbrough) was scared, man,” Marcus explains. “I understand it was a mental health breakdown, I do, I understand that. But he was also putting this family in jeopardy shooting into their unit.”
Things get heated and people yell at each other as one side wants to know why a man was shot and the other was in fear for their lives from that man.. I get that...although there is no reference to that in this story that is linked. In fact is says the parents of the shooter felt for her...not "mocked" her. BLM isn't specifically named either.
Any use of force by the Minneapolis police department will be considered suspicious until proven otherwise. And frankly, that department has brought it on themselves. Because of their own past actions, the community, especially the black community, has no faith in them. Lack of transparency is only one reason. Not coming out and saying what caused the sniper to shoot tells the citizens they maybe trying to hide something.
As long as there is no violence, protest away.
(07-19-2022, 03:59 AM)pally Wrote: Any use of force by the Minneapolis police department will be considered suspicious until proven otherwise. And frankly, that department has brought it on themselves. Because of their own past actions, the community, especially the black community, has no faith in them. Lack of transparency is only one reason. Not coming out and saying what caused the sniper to shoot tells the citizens they maybe trying to hide something.
As long as there is no violence, protest away.
I just had a chance to see some of the video shared too.
The video seems like a TOTALLY unbiased opinion.
I stand by my statement: It was heated. Both sides had a reason to be there. I can't fault the woman and I can't say that the group questioning the police is wrong either.
That this video was used to create a further split is kind of sad.
(07-19-2022, 03:59 AM)pally Wrote: Any use of force by the Minneapolis police department will be considered suspicious until proven otherwise. And frankly, that department has brought it on themselves. Because of their own past actions, the community, especially the black community, has no faith in them. Lack of transparency is only one reason. Not coming out and saying what caused the sniper to shoot tells the citizens they maybe trying to hide something.
As long as there is no violence, protest away.
What caused them to shoot? How about the guy shot at police and tried to murder a woman and her kids? Not a good enough reason for you? Apparently, and this hasn't been confirmed, but he'd been stalking and harassing the same woman for several months. Also, no comment on the protestors telling her to "shut up, *****"?
(07-19-2022, 11:06 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What caused them to shoot? How about the guy shot at police and tried to murder a woman and her kids? Not a good enough reason for you? Apparently, and this hasn't been confirmed, but he'd been stalking and harassing the same woman for several months. Also, no comment on the protestors telling her to "shut up, *****"?
And cops being judge, jury, and executioners are exactly WHY you get protests. It was a 6-hour-long standoff. What happened at hour 6 that caused the sniper to pull the trigger? Did something happen or did he just get bored and decide to end things. Minneapolis has a long history of hiding the truth about police actions. He was shot last Thursday, surely they know why the sniper pulled the trigger by now
There was a verbal confrontation, it got heated, and things get said. She didn't listen to them, they didn't listen to her. The f-word got thrown around a lot. Each side moved on without violence.
Why was "BLM" blamed for any of this? Just because black people were involved in the protest doesn't mean that organization is involved.
Minneapolis owes an explanation of its actions to their citizens. THAT is what the crowd was demanding.
(07-19-2022, 12:03 PM)pally Wrote: And cops being judge, jury, and executioners are exactly WHY you get protests.
What a wholly inaccurate statement. Sometimes in the course of conducting your lawful duty a LEO has to use deadly force. That does not make them "judge, jury and executioner" and propgating that kind of misinformation is a large part of the current problem.
Quote:It was a 6-hour-long standoff. What happened at hour 6 that caused the sniper to pull the trigger? Did something happen or did he just get bored and decide to end things.
Your second sentence here proves you're not even attempting to discuss this in a serious manner.
Quote:Minneapolis has a long history of hiding the truth about police actions. He was shot last Thursday, surely they know why the sniper pulled the trigger by now
There was a verbal confrontation, it got heated, and things get said. She didn't listen to them, they didn't listen to her. The f-word got thrown around a lot. Each side moved on without violence.
Yeah, except one side was the victim of an attempted murder of her and her children and the other group was people defending the attempted murderer.
Quote:Why was "BLM" blamed for any of this? Just because black people were involved in the protest doesn't mean that organization is involved.
Minneapolis owes an explanation of its actions to their citizens. THAT is what the crowd was demanding.
Is that what they were demanding? Because there's a bunch of statements that police only killed him because he's black, so no, they aren't looking for answers, they already decided why it happened. Also, the guy's adoptive parents flat out lied saying they weren't allowed to speak to their son. There's literal video of them giving the father the loudspeaker to encourage the guy to talk to negotiators.
(07-19-2022, 11:06 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What caused them to shoot? How about the guy shot at police and tried to murder a woman and her kids? Not a good enough reason for you? Apparently, and this hasn't been confirmed, but he'd been stalking and harassing the same woman for several months. Also, no comment on the protestors telling her to "shut up, *****"?
I mean, it is fair to ask the question of what changed during the negotiations that caused the sniper to pull the trigger.
I would also point out, though, that in that situation a sniper is there to prevent further injury to the public and the officers. All it takes is for the suspect to move their hand in a way that makes them feel uncomfortable and they will be justified to pull the trigger. In that situation, the sniper isn't going to wait for the suspect to point a weapon at someone; that is too late. All there has to be is a shift in some way that could signal something was coming and that suspect is getting dropped. He had already proven a willingness to kill, so the smart action is to not give them a chance.
I think we just need to take a moment and recognize that there is some validity to the discussion occurring on both sides, here. It may not be communicated in the best way, but there is validity there.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(07-19-2022, 01:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I mean, it is fair to ask the question of what changed during the negotiations that caused the sniper to pull the trigger.
I would also point out, though, that in that situation a sniper is there to prevent further injury to the public and the officers. All it takes is for the suspect to move their hand in a way that makes them feel uncomfortable and they will be justified to pull the trigger. In that situation, the sniper isn't going to wait for the suspect to point a weapon at someone; that is too late. All there has to be is a shift in some way that could signal something was coming and that suspect is getting dropped. He had already proven a willingness to kill, so the smart action is to not give them a chance.
Especially from a person who has already fired multiple shots at a woman and her children, as well as law enforcement. They gave this guy hours to surrender and made multiple attempts to negotiate with him, even having his dad make multiple appeals via loudspeaker.
Quote:I think we just need to take a moment and recognize that there is some validity to the discussion occurring on both sides, here. It may not be communicated in the best way, but there is validity there.
I have no issue with asking questions and wanting answers. I have a major issue with race grifters like Ben Crump labeling this a wrongful killing and the parents stating that their son would be alive if he was white. While I recognize they're hurting, and probably feel largely responsible themselves, I have no respect or sympathy with that kind of public, incendiary, proclamation. And I have absolutely zero respect for the people that disrespected that poor woman who was stalked and harassed for months before the guy literally tried to murder her and her kids.
(07-19-2022, 01:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I mean, it is fair to ask the question of what changed during the negotiations that caused the sniper to pull the trigger.
I would also point out, though, that in that situation a sniper is there to prevent further injury to the public and the officers. All it takes is for the suspect to move their hand in a way that makes them feel uncomfortable and they will be justified to pull the trigger. In that situation, the sniper isn't going to wait for the suspect to point a weapon at someone; that is too late. All there has to be is a shift in some way that could signal something was coming and that suspect is getting dropped. He had already proven a willingness to kill, so the smart action is to not give them a chance.
I think we just need to take a moment and recognize that there is some validity to the discussion occurring on both sides, here. It may not be communicated in the best way, but there is validity there.
I think that's why we said once we know the reason that will be good.
A little transparency would go a long way toward cooling relations between protestors and police.
But as has been posted there is a mistrust there that will take time to heal. And it has to see movement from both sides. Not that won't always be extremists (on both sides) but that the majority should be able to get together on these unfortunate events.
(07-19-2022, 12:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What a wholly inaccurate statement. Sometimes in the course of conducting your lawful duty a LEO has to use deadly force. That does not make them "judge, jury and executioner" and propgating that kind of misinformation is a large part of the current problem.
Your second sentence here proves you're not even attempting to discuss this in a serious manner.
Yeah, except one side was the victim of an attempted murder of her and her children and the other group was people defending the attempted murderer.
Is that what they were demanding? Because there's a bunch of statements that police only killed him because he's black, so no, they aren't looking for answers, they already decided why it happened. Also, the guy's adoptive parents flat out lied saying they weren't allowed to speak to their son. There's literal video of them giving the father the loudspeaker to encourage the guy to talk to negotiators.
My 2nd statement was as serious as a heart attack. What changed to cause the sniper to shoot. If the suspect made a dangerous movement then surely the sniper's body cam bore that out. The longer the Minneapolis police take to answer that question the more the public will distrust the answer. The delay looks like they are looking to concoct a reasonable believable response. The public will fill in the silence with their own answers and THAT will become the truth of the situation. It is not like the Minneapolis police department is coming from decades of upstanding service to the public. They have no benefit of the doubt. Apparently, though they haven't learned anything from their past handling of police shootings.
The protesters were not defending the actions of the suspect...they were protesting the manner of his death. There is a difference.
(07-19-2022, 02:49 PM)pally Wrote: My 2nd statement was as serious as a heart attack. What changed to cause the sniper to shoot. If the suspect made a dangerous movement then surely the sniper's body cam bore that out. The longer the Minneapolis police take to answer that question the more the public will distrust the answer. The delay looks like they are looking to concoct a reasonable believable response. The public will fill in the silence with their own answers and THAT will become the truth of the situation. It is not like the Minneapolis police department is coming from decades of upstanding service to the public. They have no benefit of the doubt. Apparently, though they haven't learned anything from their past handling of police shootings.
The protesters were not defending the actions of the suspect...they were protesting the manner of his death. There is a difference.
To the bold: most likely not. Now, I don't know the layout of the scene or anything, but snipers/sharpshooters are almost always taking a shot from the prone position or one in which their weapon is supported on a solid rest. These positions would leave any field of view from a body worn camera obstructed. Not to mention that the distance to target for such a shot would be longer than these cameras are designed to capture. Body worn cameras are designed to really only capture quality images from like 10-15 feet away. After that the image quality, which already wasn't great, diminishes greatly. The distances a sniper would shoot from, usually measured in yards/meters rather than feet, would not be captured well on such a camera, especially a movement that could be slight.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(07-19-2022, 03:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: To the bold: most likely not. Now, I don't know the layout of the scene or anything, but snipers/sharpshooters are almost always taking a shot from the prone position or one in which their weapon is supported on a solid rest. These positions would leave any field of view from a body worn camera obstructed. Not to mention that the distance to target for such a shot would be longer than these cameras are designed to capture. Body worn cameras are designed to really only capture quality images from like 10-15 feet away. After that the image quality, which already wasn't great, diminishes greatly. The distances a sniper would shoot from, usually measured in yards/meters rather than feet, would not be captured well on such a camera, especially a movement that could be slight.
Thank you for fielding this, I do get tired of having to explain things that one would think are obvious. I will add one thing though, there is zero chance of any body camera footage from a sniper. Even if they are not in a prone position, which is often the case as you correctly point out, the worn body camera has nowhere near the range to capture useable footage. Even if it did, it's attached to you chest, which will be canted forward when in a shooting position with a rifle, so it wouldn't catch anything useable even if it had the ability to do so.
Also, as you have previously pointed out, this guy had already shot at several people, including police. Additionally, they gave this guy hours upon hours to negotiate or surrender, all of which he refused to do. Given all these circumstances it could have been as simple as take the shot if you have it, given that this guy had already proven himself more than willing to murder people and his still being armed. That he was a danger to the lives of anyone in that building had already been demonstrated beyond any doubt.
(07-19-2022, 12:03 PM)pally Wrote: And cops being judge, jury, and executioners are exactly WHY you get protests. It was a 6-hour-long standoff. What happened at hour 6 that caused the sniper to pull the trigger? Did something happen or did he just get bored and decide to end things. Minneapolis has a long history of hiding the truth about police actions. He was shot last Thursday, surely they know why the sniper pulled the trigger by now
There was a verbal confrontation, it got heated, and things get said. She didn't listen to them, they didn't listen to her. The f-word got thrown around a lot. Each side moved on without violence.
Why was "BLM" blamed for any of this? Just because black people were involved in the protest doesn't mean that organization is involved.
Minneapolis owes an explanation of its actions to their citizens. THAT is what the crowd was demanding.
I agree with the bolded. People aren't upset because cops sometimes have to shoot people in the line of duty.
They are upset because there seem to be so many avoidable deaths.
I think Dino has framed it correctly. We need to wait for more info before deciding anything,
e.g., if the man were killed six hours AFTER he stopped shooting, it is proper and legitimate for citizens to ask why
that was necessary. Because he had been shooting so many hours earlier and had not yet surrendered is not,
on the surface, the kind answer we should accept.
If the guy were still negotiating with the police, and someone got the ok to shoot while the shooter was still talking,
then I would say that was police acting as judge and executioner--even if the shooter had posed serious danger before.
If he were still taking shots at people DURING the negotiation, that could be different.
(07-19-2022, 01:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I mean, it is fair to ask the question of what changed during the negotiations that caused the sniper to pull the trigger.
Yes indeed. And it shouldn't take a lot of time to answer that question. People might wonder if this was an inverse Uvalde, in which someone who was supposed to follow protocol didn't as a result of confused chain of command, and killed when he should have kept waiting for negotiations to work. Seems like a possibility at least.
(07-19-2022, 01:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would also point out, though, that in that situation a sniper is there to prevent further injury to the public and the officers. All it takes is for the suspect to move their hand in a way that makes them feel uncomfortable and they will be justified to pull the trigger. In that situation, the sniper isn't going to wait for the suspect to point a weapon at someone; that is too late. All there has to be is a shift in some way that could signal something was coming and that suspect is getting dropped. He had already proven a willingness to kill, so the smart action is to not give them a chance.
I think we just need to take a moment and recognize that there is some validity to the discussion occurring on both sides, here. It may not be communicated in the best way, but there is validity there.
I'm guessing the shooter was not in sight for most of the negotiations. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't let him stand in a window with a weapon after he has already endangered others; that would prompt an immediate shot, not six hours of guessing. If he were walking around negotiating on a phone and was shot when passed by a window, that would be questionable. If he were hidden for six hours, then suddenly appeared at the window with a weapon, that might be justified, especially if he is adamantly refusing any negotiated outcome.
(07-19-2022, 04:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Thank you for fielding this, I do get tired of having to explain things that one would think are obvious. I will add one thing though, there is zero chance of any body camera footage from a sniper. Even if they are not in a prone position, which is often the case as you correctly point out, the worn body camera has nowhere near the range to capture useable footage. Even if it did, it's attached to you chest, which will be canted forward when in a shooting position with a rifle, so it wouldn't catch anything useable even if it had the ability to do so.
Also, as you have previously pointed out, this guy had already shot at several people, including police. Additionally, they gave this guy hours upon hours to negotiate or surrender, all of which he refused to do. Given all these circumstances it could have been as simple as take the shot if you have it, given that this guy had already proven himself more than willing to murder people and his still being armed. That he was a danger to the lives of anyone in that building had already been demonstrated beyond any doubt.
If 2 snipers took the shot, then the chances are great they were ordered to do so by a superior who acted as a spotter on the ground. These snipers unlikely had field of vision to make the call when keeping the crosshairs on the attempted murderer. If he made an act of further aggression, the call was justifiably made.
(07-19-2022, 08:16 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes indeed. And it shouldn't take a lot of time to answer that question. People might wonder if this was an inverse Uvalde, in which someone
who was supposed to follow protocol didn't as a result of confused chain of command, and killed when he should have kept waiting for negotiations to work. Seems like a possibility at least.
I'm guessing the shooter was not in sight for most of the negotiations. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't let him stand in a window with a weapon
after he has already endangered others; that would prompt an immediate shot, not six hours of guessing. If he were walking around negotiating on a phone and was shot when passed by a window, that would be questionable. If he were hidden for six hours, then suddenly appeared at the window with a weapon, that might be justified, especially if he is adamantly refusing any negotiated outcome.
A stated we don't have every shred of evidence as to what happened. But I think it's far more likely they literally exhausted every option available before shooting this guy for the exact reason that people in this thread have referenced, that they will automatically be perceived as having "murdered" another black man.
BLM is just the latest incarnation of the "Race Hustler" game perfected by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They've taken the extortion game to a new level, and used those funds to buy mansions.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: TEKLE-MARCH_VO_00.00.00.00.jpg]](https://kstp.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/TEKLE-MARCH_VO_00.00.00.00.jpg)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
