380

DOJ says police officer justified in killing 22 y/o over 2 magic mushroom chocolate bars. (www.delawareonline.com)

submitted 3 months ago by Hegar@kbin.social to c/thepoliceproblem@lemmy.world

47 comments fedilink hide all child comments

An undercover police officer arranged to buy 2 magic mushroom chocolate bars over Instagram then opened fire within seconds, killing the driver and injuring the passenger for selling $100 worth of antidepressants. Perfectly justified.

all 49 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] ShadowRam@fedia.io 124 points 3 months ago

An undercover officer had arranged to meet Edelmann in the 7-Eleven parking lot on South Maryland Avenue at 7:40 p.m. and purchase two chocolate bars infused with psychedelic mushrooms

So.. that's what your police $$$ is going towards?

Setting up sting operations over some mushroom chocolate bars?

[-] ArgentRaven@lemmy.world 63 points 3 months ago

Not at all! Most of it goes to excessive force payoffs. And buying surplus military equipment like tanks.

[-] underisk@lemmy.ml 23 points 3 months ago

Don't forget trips to Israel to train with the IDF.

[-] Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

Hey, if you want to kill the most civilians for the lowest cost, you gotta train with the best!

[-] Woht24@lemmy.world 28 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Even worse is the prostitute stings they proudly show on COPS. They pretend to be John's and make agreed deals with consenting adults and then say 'haha we're actually the police, not some guy who wanted to fuck you and you're under arrest for merely agreeing to have sex for money'.

Like what an absolute fucking waste of time, money and people's lives.

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago

I was wondering about that camera

[-] Nomecks@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 months ago

They stopped $1 Trillion of chocolate bars in this single bust!

[-] thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Don't forget the street value of the drug paraphernalia (sandwich bag)

[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 92 points 3 months ago

As always, ACAB.

And RIP to Andrew Edelmann. He didn't deserve to murdered by a cop.

[-] skeptomatic@lemmy.ca 56 points 3 months ago

The 22 y/o wasn't killed, "over 2 magic mushroom chocolate bars", he was killed because he accelerated his vehicle in an attempt to flee, and came somewhat close to hitting the officer.
However, before the victim accelerated, the officer who shot the young man jumped out of the passenger door of an unmarked police truck and drew his weapon, no audio in the video.
There's a very real chance the victim did not know he was a cop, and panicked. He should be excused of that, had he lived.
The officer fucked up hard, jumping out an unmarked vehicle with no emergency lights, waving a gun around?
Fuck, I'd run over anyone who does that to me, and I think most would do similar.
Then also not practicing restraint in firing his weapon after clearly no more danger existed once the car passed him, guy's a fucking clown.
The only reason the second police vehicle (which showed up from behind just as the victim accelerated) was even hit at all is because the victim had been shot and couldn't steer the vehicle.
The cop should be charged with second degree, or at minimum some kind of reckless endangerment resulting in death, and fired.

[-] Hegar@kbin.social 31 points 3 months ago

"over 2 magic mushroom chocolate bars" in the sense that that's what was at stake, that was the reason for the whole thing. "used as a function word to indicate the object of an ... activity" to quote Miriam Webster.

You describe quite well how the officers' plans and actions made this outcome more likely. And how these failures put them in a position to kill a kid they were only there to bust for 2 shroom bars anyway.

[+] skeptomatic@lemmy.ca -12 points 3 months ago

Yeah gonna have to disagree with you on that.
The way that that is worded is exactly what I wanted to draw attention to.
That MW definition (preposition 7b) shows examples, "trouble over money" and, "met with advisors over lunch".
For this, "over" can be substituted with, "because of" for the former but not the later.
Op means to incite emotional response from readers by using the "because of" version. And even if cops are fucked, that's bullshit to not show all sides of the story.
That's some Fox News shit.
You could say they were "set up" over 2 magic mushroom chocolate bars. But not killed over. The chocobars didn't even come into play for the killing. They were just the reason all parties were there.
It could have happened over an M&M, or a dirty briefcase nuke, just the same.
To make a tag line to imply it was over something petty seems to be intentional to belittle law enforcement, and is just part of the agenda for Op, whether it be controversy for the upvotes, or actual distrust or hate for cops, whatever. The killing happened because of the shitty decisions by both the victim and the killer.
I'd like to point out I think very poorly of this cop. Wrongdoing by law enforcement should be called out. Killing should be punished.
But I mean..., I've been put in the drunk tank before and I'll tell you right now, cops doing their job can work totally fine if you don't resist, and don't try to flee. If a cop says get on the ground and you do and you shut the fuck up, you're likelyhood to not be shot, or even treated that badly, goes way the fuck up.

[-] Hegar@kbin.social 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Op means to incite emotional response from readers by using the “because of” version.

No I don't.

I mean to invite emotional response using the meaning I just explained above - cops planned to arrest someone over nothing, and their incompetence lead to killing him over nothing.

If it was just because they had 2 shroom bars, that would be extrajudicial execution. That's Duterte level policing and would be a national story.

The pointlessness of this arrest should be emotional - it's an obvious injustice. The police set up a potentially deadly situation with no potential value to society. The standard mamallian response to being cornered was all it took to escalate this to fatal. Over nothing.

bullshit to not show all sides of the story.
That’s some Fox News shit.

Nope, one side is objectively lying about the facts. Repeating the lies of the powerful is some fox news shit. I'm gonna to stick to presenting the facts - cops planned to arrest someone over nothing, and their incompetence lead to killing him over nothing.

[+] skeptomatic@lemmy.ca -6 points 3 months ago

I'm with you, that it was mishandled and the cop who fired is incompetent, I'm with you that loss of life is terrible, I'm with you that setting up a sort of sting to buy 2 zoomer-bars is a waste of taxpayer money. It's all an injustice. As I said before the victim might not even have known the guy was a cop...
But they didn't kill him over "nothing" they killed him over the flee attempt.
The guy must have been a known drug dealer for them to bother setting up. And reminder, he had a loaded semi-auto rifle in the vehicle. Though it doesn't say anything about the legality of that weapon.

Anyway, here's a scenario:
Man walks into convenience store.
Man shoplifts a chocolate bar.
Cop notices.
Cop says "hey stop".
Man pulls hidden GRENADE from his pocket, pulls the pin, and attempts to throw at vicinity of cop.
Police shoot and kill man.

The way you say your headline should read:
DOJ says police officer justified in killing man for shoplifting chocolate bar.

I mean...c'mon.

[-] Hegar@kbin.social 5 points 3 months ago

they didn’t kill him over “nothing” they killed him over the flee attempt.

The decision was: do I let this kid get away with selling 2 shroom bars or do I deploy potentially lethal force?

If someone's unnecessarily killed during say an armed robbery, they weren't killed over nothing, even if they could've been arrested.

Police are empowered to use violence with the understanding that it will benefit society. And most will agree that preventing armed robbery has value.

This officer deployed violence to prevent a kid from getting away with selling 2 shroom bars. Without any personal threat. That has no value to society, nothing. And a kid was killed over it.

I don't understand why the particular events that happened before that seem so important to you?

[-] skeptomatic@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago

That wasn't the decision. There's not an ice cube's chance in hell he went through the longer thought process it would take at the speed events unfolded to contemplate, "hmm, you know what, this kid has 2 whole mushroom bars in that car and he appears to be trying to leave with them, and he's now accelerating towards me, or at least in such a close proximity to me that it's now dangerous, probably not dangerous for my colleagues whom have just driven up because I can see the future like a Jedi all of a sudden and know what's going to happen before it happens, but they still have those damn mushroom bars and my partner and I we're going to split one of them after the bust and I owe him for talking that hooker he busted last weekend into getting let off in trade for giving me a free beeg behind Wendys, so I really need those mushroom bars and that's totally the reason I better start blasting."
😆

The decision was, "suspect driving at me, he's now a danger to me or my colleagues, shoot at danger."

Don't matter how they all got there.
Cops and correction officers are trained to take the decision making process out of the equation for faster reaction times.
I'm in no way saying that's the best, or even a good-at-all way to train cops, but it's predictable.

So, what'd we all learn?
This cop in question certainly is a fuck up and should be fired, and charged for the extant he can be.
Officer training needs work.
2 mushroom bars remains a very stupid reason to arrest someone in the first place, and mushrooms should be legalized. But it doesn't matter in this case because laws are laws.
The Victim was killed over attempting to flee, because we know now how cause-and-effect works, and the mushroom bars can't be the cause because had he not fled, he wouldn't have been shot at and killed.
Ops tag line was sensationalized to remove blame from the vic and add blame to the cops because, well they deserve it, but also because we're in the police problem sub. It lacks though because, "2 magic mushroom chocolate bars" can be substituted with, "bust", or, "drug deal gone wrong", or, "waxing gibbous moon"...and those would all be valid, therefore if it's any of them, it's none.
They were there and present over mushroom bars, but the Victim was killed over ( what I'm sure the cop will say in court is) attempt vehicular homicide.
And, Don't.fucking.run.from.cops. regardless of their training.
Cheers.

[-] Revan343@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 months ago

In your scenario, the police did not actively seek out the situation and then fuck it up.

In this scenario, they did

[-] skeptomatic@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago

Lol. Ok, obv wrong sub for sense.

[-] Hegar@kbin.social 2 points 3 months ago

You compared throwing a grenade at a police officer to fleeing. If you say that two very different things are the same, people will probably point out that they are not.

[-] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 51 points 3 months ago

Killed someone over a god damn candy bar.

[-] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 10 points 3 months ago

Filled with the devils fungus, I’ll have you know!

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 35 points 3 months ago

We’ve investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing.

[-] RamblingPanda@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 3 months ago

Also we found those tasty chocolate bars and some money

[-] SteefLem@lemmy.world 35 points 3 months ago

[-] LodeMike 19 points 3 months ago

Wait so they opened fire for him trying to excape???

Jesus fuck.

[-] IvanOverdrive@lemm.ee 15 points 3 months ago

Was the chocolate bar shaped like a gun? No?

Also, isn't homicide a crime?

[-] GluWu@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago

They're coming right for us! Kill em Ned!

They proudly never thought satire about justifying hunting would be a valid policing strategy.

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

Because simply jumping out of the way and performing a pesky chase is too hard.

[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 2 points 3 months ago

Never run from cops. You'll just die tired.

[-] ShadowRam@fedia.io 3 points 3 months ago

Was it an obvious cop?

Some unmarked truck shows up, blocks you, and dude jumps out with gun in hand?

Fleeing with your vehicle seems pretty on par for most people's reaction.

[-] ettyblatant@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Do cops like him get security guards after murdering someone?

[-] uis@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

Magic?

[+] CluelessLemmyng@lemmy.sdf.org -17 points 3 months ago

OP left out the part in the report where it says the officer fired after the car accelerated toward him.

Although, I would like to see any video/dashcam.

I also think it's stupid that an undercover cop was going to do a drug bust on something rather innocuous.

[-] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 36 points 3 months ago

OP left out the part in the report where it says the officer fired after the car accelerated toward him.

When a video shows exactly what the police claim, I'll believe that. Not before.

[-] Hegar@kbin.social 33 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

OP left out the part in the report where it says the officer fired after the car accelerated toward him.

Because it's an irrelevant lie.

After is true but damning and toward is a lie. The officer is securely out of the way and any danger has passed when he opens fire. The driver is clearly trying to get away, and drives past the officer not at him.

The 'dodge' the officer mentions is so small you can't notice it in the bodycam footage. You see a side-step in the security cam footage, but the officer was clearly to the side of the victim's car already at that point.

I would like to see any video/dashcam.

Both are in the link. 0:15-0:21 for the bodycam and 0:46 -0:51 for the security cam.

[-] ReallyKinda@kbin.social 20 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Indeed, it’s pretty clear in the video, which is at the very top of the article, that the car didn’t accelerate at the shooter.

[-] BigCow@kbin.social 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Watch the video...the cop was out of the way of the car shooting into the side of it. Not only was he not in danger when murdering this person but also shot the passenger. Let the suspect get away and get them later they obviously panicked when the lights from the cops pulling up went off, no need to kill someone for some candy. They had enough information to put a warrant out after this interaction.

[-] TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

There are so many actually harmful drugs they could focus resources on, but these assholes chose to go after a kid selling mushrooms, instead. Its probably because they are too cowardly to go after actual scary drug dealers. They'd prefer to collect a paycheck, and go ruin some harmless psychedelic users' lives. I don't know how they sleep at night. It's disgusting.

Psilocybin mushrooms are not ruining anyone's lives.

[-] quicksand@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

Username checks out ✅

[-] CluelessDude@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I'm also Clueless but this dude (the one you replying to) is just braindead.

[+] cavaloris@sh.itjust.works -36 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] Hegar@kbin.social 34 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Let’s all make judgements based off incomplete data!

Nah, we'll watch the two recordings instead I think.

Drive your car at a police officer

Didn't happen.

I hope they release the footage

They did.

THEN press charges

They didn't.

if warranted.

Very warranted. Still didn't happen.

How are you still, in 2024, giving the police the benefit of the doubt even when there's no doubt?

[-] Rayston@kbin.social 19 points 3 months ago

the footage is literally at the top of the article ya bootlicker.

[-] JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca 19 points 3 months ago

Ya got boot polish on your God damn nose

[-] snooggums@midwest.social 18 points 3 months ago

Pretty gullible of you to believe that the car was driving at the officer just because the police said so.

Lick them boots!

[-] ReallyKinda@kbin.social 18 points 3 months ago

Downvoting because the footage is right there

[-] Lemonparty@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago

Surprised you can talk with that blue dick jammed in your mouth.

this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024

380 points (97.5% liked)

THE POLICE PROBLEM

2229 readers

588 users here now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All this is a path to a police state.

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

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

That's the solution.

♦ ♦ ♦

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

♦ ♦ ♦

RULES

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

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

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

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

Please also abide by the instance rules.

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

♦ ♦ ♦

ALLIES

• !abolition@slrpnk.net

• !acab@lemmygrad.ml

• r/ACAB

• r/BadCopNoDonut/

• Randy Balko

• The Civil Rights Lawyer

• The Honest Courtesan

• Identity Project

• MirandaWarning.org

♦ ♦ ♦