Man Not Guilty in Self Defense Case Against Police During Minneapolis Riots

The Minneapolis 3rd Precinct Police Station in flames after rioters seized the building

U.S.A.-( On Saturday night, 30 May 2020, at about 11 pm, an unmarked white police van with the lights off is looking for groups of people who are violating curfew.  The van is prowling in the area of Minneapolis where there had been extensive rioting and protests.  A curfew is in effect. It was put in place the previous day. It has been five days after George Floyd had died in police custody.

The unmarked police van carries Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) SWAT team members.  Several have 40mm launchers loaded with rubber bullets used to disperse rioters.

They have been given orders to fire rubber bullets at people who are violating the curfew.  The van is followed by police cars, but all the lights have been turned off. The SWAT officers are not told to identify themselves before they fire. The orders are precisely the opposite.

The Sergeant in charge of the van tells his team (from the body cam transcripts) “The first f***ers we see, we’re just hammering ’em with ’40s.”

The police do not fire at everyone who is out. They fire without warning at who they choose.

Jaleel Stallings had been participating in the protests. He is a truck driver from St. Paul and a veteran. He has no criminal record. He has a Minnesota carry permit.

He stated, based on official pronouncements claiming white supremacists from out of town are seeking to harm blacks and people of color, he armed himself for self-protection. Those pronouncements were not substantiated and did not come from the police.

From, Department of Safety Commissioner John Harrington, then-Mayor Jacob Frey:

He said some of the 40 arrests made in the Twin Cities Friday night were of people linked to white supremacist groups and organized crime.

“The people that are doing this are not Minneapolis residents,” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said. “They are coming largely from outside the city outside the region to prey on everything we have built.”

Stallings is violating the curfew. He is in a parking lot. He has seen marked police cars go by with lights on. They did not stop or talk to him.

A few seconds before the van comes into sight of Stallings, a person runs past him, shouting: “They’re shooting, they’re  shooting!” From

Stallings was made aware of the unit approaching when a civilian ran past his location at a parking lot near the intersection of 15th Avenue and East Lake Street. The civilian was shouting, “they’re shooting, they’re shooting!” At no point did Stallings or the people with Stallings identify the people shooting as police. According to Stallings, he wasn’t made aware of whom the people shooting at the crowds were, as they never made their presence openly known.

At 10:53 pm, the van comes into sight of Jaleel Stallings. He is next to his pickup truck in the parking lot. They immediately fire 40mm rubber bullet rounds at Stallings, from 70 feet away. It is dark. The van is moving. It has no lights on. Stallings is hit in the lower chest.  He returns fire, hitting the street in front of the van. He fires three or four rounds from his mini Draco pistol. No officer is struck.

The officers yell “Shots fired! Shots fired!” and exit the van. At this point, Stallings says he realized they were police officers, puts his weapon on the ground, away from his body, and lays face down, with his hands above his head.


After firing his weapon at the officers “three or four times,” Stallings, a military veteran, then realized it was police and put his pistol down and laid down on the ground, after police yelled, “shots fired, shots fired.” He didn’t move for about 20 seconds as the officers approached. Body camera footage shows police kicking and punching Stallings while he was lying on the ground, as stated by the judge in court records.

From here on, the stories diverge.

There are several contradictions between the official police story and the transcripts from the body camera video and audio, which were reviewed by a judge and became part of the trial record.

The officers cautiously approach Stallings, then viciously beat him with fists and feet for about 30 seconds. Stallings is not resisting. The beating is caught on  body cameras.

Jaleel Stallings, 30 May, 2020  MPD Mugshot. He is glad to be alive.

Because the officers had not fired lethal rounds, the arrest is not considered a “shooting incident”. The officers claim Stallings resisted arrest.

The officers were not separated and questioned, as is required by MPD procedure in a shooting incident. They were allowed to watch body cam videos before giving their official statements for the trial. Those statements came later, and sometimes contradict what the officers wrote in their reports, earlier. The police claimed Stallings resisted. The body camera video shows he did not resist. One of the lesser discrepancies is the officers repeatedly referring to the Draco pistol as a rifle.

Minnesota law applies extra penalties for assaulting a police officer but does not require knowledge of the person that the person assaulted was a police officer.

This is an interpretation of the law that is open to abuse.

Stallings had his $75,000 dollar cash bail paid by Minnesota Freedom Fund, a group that protests bail practices. He was able to hire a good lawyer. The lawyer obtained the body cam videos of the incident and the commands concerning us of the 40mm launchers and rubber bullets. The body camera video directly contradicted what was in the officer’s written reports.  From

Stallings hired defense attorney Eric Rice of St. Paul, who obtained two hours of bodycam videos that he said tell a different story than what officers and prosecutors told the public.

“It’s hard to watch the videos,” he said in an interview. “They are very graphic and visceral. It makes it very clear what the intention of the officers were.”

The videos show the SWAT team tried to conceal its identity, didn’t warn people before firing on them, gave numerous false and misleading accounts of the incident and — when presented with contradictory evidence — changed their stories, Rice said.

Stallings trial was held in late July 2021. After a five-day trial, the jury acquitted him of all charges, by reason of self-defense.  It appears the officers violated department policy in several ways. There has not been any disciplinary action noted as of the end of the trial.

The digital age, where recordings of most public activities hold the police to account, is changing policing and encouraging honesty. When black people realize they will be held innocent until proved guilty, the trust in the system increases.

Cameras and other recording devices have become as important as firearms in saving the Republic and enforcing the Bill of Rights. Both are important tools for Second Amendment activists.

Analysis and commentary: It is this correspondent’s opinion the officers violated policy, and the law. There were other police units that night that did not indiscriminately fire 40mm rubber bullets.

The situation came about, in large part, because the media encouraged violent protests by their extremely selective and emotional reporting of the George Floyd case. Most conservative media, such as Hannity and Limbaugh contributed to the narrative, responding to the Floyd George video without serious analysis or due process.

This alienated and angered the police. It incited the public. The Minnesota Democrat government fanned the flames with unfounded accusations of “white supremacists”, and accusations against police in general, which the police had reason to believe were false. Most of the out-of-state activists promoting violence were far-left and/or anarchists.  It is a pretty good description of Antifa.

The police and residents were set at odds. Violence was encouraged. The purpose appeared to be: motivate black voters to vote against President Trump, who was repeatedly portrayed in the media as a racist. It worked. President Trump lost the disputed 2020 elections by a narrow margin.

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Dean Weingarten

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pssst! Hey Bub!

Since this is not an article with any military context, the word “civilians” is misused. Police are not military and thus, are also civilians themselves. Just because they have a badge and a gun doesn’t make them not so. IMO FTFA


You obviously need to expand your vocabulary.
From the Merriam-Webster website. ( Maybe you’ve heard of them.)

2a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force


They don’t get everything right:

Definition of assault weapon
any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms
especially ASSAULT RIFLE

The military has its own police.

People in the military are subject to the UCMJ.


My whole point was that their definition was incorrect.

You need to read my posts more carefully and try to follow along with the logic . . .


“TEX” (Will):

“Your posts have nothing to do with logic. You are always proven wrong on all your idiotic positions.”

Response to Will:

More of your “all” statements.

Did you attempt to follow the above posts?

Why do you make a general statement instead of a specific point?


“TEX” (Will)

“What happened to your sidekick Russki? I guess he decided to go on down the road! ha ha ha”

Response to “TEX” (Will):

I don’t know.

What happened to Will and FORD Will?


So I take it that if an individual or group gets one thing wrong you think they get everything wrong? What source, other than the “Official JSNMGC Dictionary” is correct since every one that I could find gas basically the same possible definition for “civilian” via one wording or another. Do you think they are all wrong? In general use, a civilian is “a person who is not a member of the police], the armed forces, or a fire department.” a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.… Read more »


My reply was put on hold.

Merriam-webster defines an “assault weapon” as:

“any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms”

Do you consider a semiautomatic AR15 to be an “assault weapon?”


  • The military has its own police.
  • People in the military are subject to the UCMJ.

Why do so many enforcers not want to be labeled as “civilians” – just one more way to create a divide?


If you trust Mirriam Webster (any edition pbublished after about 1950 or so) then I want to offer you the chance to buy my pet chicken, who can fly to the moon and back in two weeks, all by herself. I’;; sell her for $10,000.

Wild Bill

Sarcasm is a low form of humor, but I think that you are saying, that we should not leave the terminology that determines the fate of the Second Amendment and private gun ownership to a college dictionary.

Last edited 1 year ago by Wild Bill

I think what he is saying is that DonP’s argument (that enforcers are not civilians) is weak.

Having said that, I don’t care if enforcers view themselves as not being civilians. Everytime one of them says something derisive about “civilians,” I just think “what a JBT.”

Someday cops are going to regret that a large percentage of them act the way they do.

Every asshole cop (and ex-cop) on the internet is making life more difficult for the “good apples” in real life.

Last edited 1 year ago by JSNMGC

“…but I think that you are saying, that we should not leave the terminology that determines the fate of the Second Amendment and private gun ownership to a college dictionary.”

The fact that people who are not members of the police are correctly referred to as civilians and members of the police aren’t referred to as civilians do to the context of this article will in no way determine the fate of the Second Amendment.


This was meant for DonP…

I need a way (word) to differentiate myself from the police. I do not receive funds from the taxpayers to provide the taxpayers with services. I do not have qualified immunity. I do not have taxpayer funded lawyers to defend my actions in court. I do not have a group to physically support me with their taxpayer funded weapons and ammunition. No, I am not them. So how do I say that? What word to I use?


Last edited 1 year ago by HLB

Non-government employee.


A couple options:
Contributing member of society
Upstanding honest citizen


I’m sure that that price would be much lower than the amount you got swindled for to purchase said chicken, but I don’t fall for that kind of thing. Maybe you should offer that deal to JSNMGC he sounds like the kind of person that might take you up on the offer.



How did you come to that conclusion?

Like I said three days ago, I don’t care if enforcers view themselves as not being civilians. I think it’s funny.

A large percentage of them are officious busybodies who will enforce any law if they are ordered to do so. If they feel their authority is disrespected, many will make-up laws and do their best to try and intimidate people into obeying them.

People are slowly waking-up to the fact that it is their local enforcers who will enable future gun laws.

The dismissive referrals to “civilians” just deepens the divide.


“How did you come to that conclusion?” Exactly which conclusion are you referring to? “Like I said three days ago, I don’t care if enforcers view themselves as not being civilians.” It isn’t a matter of “if enforcers view themselves as not being civilians.” My sole purpose in this discussion was to point out that in the context of differentiating between police and non-police, non-police are correctly referred to by the term “civilian”…by definition. That is not the only definition of civilian, but it is a valid definition. It appears that *you* don’t seem to like that definition, but that… Read more »


“Exactly which conclusion are you referring to?” The conclusion of yours to which I responded.  Specifically, that you believe I sound like the kind of person who might take Tionico up on his offer (to buy a pet chicken for $10,000, that is being advertised as being able to fly to the moon and back in two weeks, all by itself). Regarding the rest of what you wrote – of course people who are not in the military and who are not police are civilians. The topic here was whether police are civilians. Pssst! Hey Bub! wrote that police are civilians. You… Read more »


“The topic here was whether police are civilians. Pssst! Hey Bub! wrote that police are civilians. You responded to him that he obviously needs to expand his vocabulary…” Yes, it is correct that the topic is whether police are civilians. If the topic was about the term “civilian” in a military vs. non-military context, I would agree that the police would qualify as civilians. As Pssst! Hey Bub! stated in the original post, however, “…this is not an article with any military context…” Due to that fact and the fact that the article was ONLY differentiating between police and non-police,… Read more »


Sorry to say that you’re wasting your time with that sad sack fellow! He says he doesn’t hate all cops, just most of them, and then he goes right back to using the generic terms of a pejorative nature for ALL cops again! He takes what 10% to 15% of all cops do that are either illegal, unethical, immoral, and then extrapolates that minority to the majority of cops! He uses emotionally Laden terms such as ‘enforcers’ to make sure he jacks up any emotively based people to his side, ignores the vast majority of men and women who are… Read more »



I’ve never argued against claims that Marxists are involved in BLM/Antifa. I criticized enforcers for obeying orders to allow BLM/Antifa to burn and loot. Stop making things up.

DonP has made a good point. Previously, I just kind of laughed when enforcers went out of their way to further separate themselves from the people who pay their salaries. I only commented because of his initial support for saying enforcers are not civilians.

DonP has convinced me that enforcers are not civilians and further more, it is important, so now I do care.

Last edited 1 year ago by JSNMGC

“He takes what 10% to 15% of all cops do that are either illegal, unethical, immoral, and then extrapolates that minority to the majority of cops!” No I don’t. The only difference in our opinion is the percentage. You believe it is 10% to 15% and I believe it is higher (I don’t know what the exact percent it is). It’s tellling, though, that when enforcers are caught on video, 100% of those involved are typically either participating in the bad behavior, backing-up those engaged in the bad behavior, or looking the other way and not intervening to stop the… Read more »


What percent of NCEs are power-triping authoritarians? I don’t know:


I need a way (word) to differentiate myself from the police. I do not receive funds from the taxpayers to provide the taxpayers with services. I do not have qualified immunity. I do not have taxpayer funded lawyers to defend my actions in court. I do not have a group to physically support me with their taxpayer funded weapons and ammunition. No, I am not them. So how do I say that? What word to I use?



Last time I checked there are crap load of cops facing prosecution for serious felony charges, there’s a crap load of other cops who are sitting in jail cells right now serving sentences for felony crimes, so why do you continue to imply that there is no accountability for people wearing badges when they do evil things? Qualified immunity is not total immunity. The Clintons have total immunity. Barack Hussein Obama has total immunity. The Bidens have total immunity. The Bush’s have total immunity. Most federal bureaucrats who are Democrats and Rinos have totally immunity. But cops? There are too… Read more »


and they wonder why no one trusts them , I would have let him go if he shot them all dead. they were ALL violating their oath . Most Police are criminals on prowl, and the ones that would be good hide so are useless


Do you have proof that “Most police are criminals on the prowl”.


I do. It’s self-evident. When police follow they orders of tyrants, they behave as criminals. Case closed.


NOTHING is self-evident as you claim. Examine everything.


Still, after many years of paying close attention to these things, you develop a sense of collective evidence.


Wild Bill

Or that collective sense could be the illusory truth effect. That is … the tendency to believe false information as fact after repetitious exposure.
The Illusury Truth Effect is a spin off of Nazi Germany’s Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebels dictum that if you tell people a lie long enough, they believe it.
Villanova U. and Temple U did a study on this “effect” and back in 1977, and found that repeated exposure to the big lie even got people to doubt what they knew to be the truth.

Wild Bill

The Illusory Truth Effect explains why so many college grads and other young people are part of the dream world that they call “Woke”.


Tens of thousands of gun laws that have been enforced for many decades.

Theft from evidence lockers.

Hiding assets because they know that even qualified immunity won’t always protect them when they abuse their authority.

Firearm confiscation – and no “good apples” intervened.

Many cases of murder, assault, perjury, evidence tampering, and other abuses of power and most enforcers either support the abusers or look the other way.


You can justifiably state that there are police who are criminals. The post by JSNMGC will support that. But going along with the post by Cruiser, you have no proof that “Most Police are criminals on prowl”. That statement is right up there with the claims from democrats that all Trump supporters are white supremacists and that the people who have not been vaccinated are all from the right wing. To justify “most” as opposed to “some” requires that you have proof that over 50% of the police are “criminals on prowl”. You do not have any proof of that… Read more »


To me, a police officer is merely “a stranger with a gun” until proved otherwise.


The left must have ignored this story since the victim had a legal firearm and was a veteran.


It doesn’t fit their narrative.


I did not read this but I am guessing it was informative and factual. For years I have been saying our Cops need to Police Themselves! Now, this would require cutting The Fine Blue Line, which should not exist, yet it does. While saying the above I have always Supported Our Cops as most of them are decent and just doing their job. But, yes But, they should all be trained to enforce a Rule Of Conduct and get rid of the bad Cops before they do more harm than good. Their Badge does not give them the right to… Read more »


the fact that the thin blue line exists demonstrates it is a them against us mentality. they look at everyone as a criminal, they only trust each other. i guess this might be part of the job, but shouldn’t be. the number of leo’s that do not know the law or don’t care about the law and enforce what they think is law is astounding. demanding someone’s papers upon initial contact is proof of that. officer safety is another load of crap, what about civilian safety? i have respect for the rule of law and only those that enforce the… Read more »


The law as you put it, is made up of literally thousands upon thousands of bona fide laws, in addition to thousands more City and or county statutes, then you throw in state laws and federal statutes and that is something you demand that every cop know verbatim? You may have a uppercase s on your chest, but I know I don’t, and so do all the other cops have zero uppercase s’s on their chests! They’re a good cops and they’re a bad cops, there are more good cops than bad cops, because if there were more bad than… Read more »


Two things here… One is, if somebody is shooting at you, do you return fire? Two is, if you choose to disarm yourself, are you willing to be beaten extensively or killed? So in one case, what if those entities are drug runners; and in the other case, what if those entities are in uniform. Does it really matter?



As far as the outcome for you goes in the scenario that you’ve listed, if the people are in uniform you’ll take a beating just like Mr Stallings did. However if they are gangbangers, cartel members, or other professional thugs and murderers, they won’t stop with just a beating after they’re done breaking your ribs, concussing you, and smashing your face into the pavement several times, then they’re likely to put a magazine worth of ammo into your body just to top it all off! So, which outcome do you prefer? The outcome Mr Stallings had, or the second scenario… Read more »


So you are saying that the difference is just one of degree?

I’d prefer that there is no sense in any comparison between criminal thugs and blue-gang members.

Last edited 1 year ago by Finnky

When “public servants” have no honor, all that reins them in is their criminal behavior caught on video. I don’t care that these cops didn’t obey departmental policy; I do care that they intentionally violated the rights of citizens, committed several violent criminal acts, and then lied about it. I also care that they were likely just following orders. This isn’t the way to police our Republic, and anyone who acts as these police did should be in prison with the other criminals.


this is my main argument for the abolishment of qualified immunity. why should the government (taxpayers) pay for the abuse of authority by leo’s when the willingly violate someone’s civil rights? make them purchase professional liability insurance, like i had to as a medical professional, and don’t punish the taxpayers. if it hurts them financially, it will slow dramatically or even stop.
leo’s also shouldn’t be involved in use of force investigations, they will never find themselves guilty.


construction contarctors in my state must post a bond which WILL be tapped when they mess up and it id not resolved peaceably. Public employees charged with interacting with the citizens ought to have to do this too. Some dirty coppper messes up, move to seize his bond until it is sorted out. Until the bond is released, the guy cannot work in direct contact with the public. This would work well with coppers.


Qualified immunity going away is great, but it deals with civil liability for officers. We need much more aggressive prosecution of officers who abuse their authority. Actions like these officers took shouldn’t just result in a lawsuit, the should result an the officers going to prision. A cop beating a civilian (without legal cause) should incur criminal penalties more severe than a civilian who beats a cop. The cop is not just hitting someone, they’re abusing the trust and authority that we as a society have placed in them. There are few things more toxic to a society than people… Read more »

Pastor Roy

Hannity & Limbaugh contributed to this incident?!? Seriously? They were the only voices proclaiming the truth for months during the terrorism perpetrated by thugs!


All those PIGS should be arrested for Assault and SUED as private Individuals. These Pigs are no better than the gang-bangers. They are in fact, a gang themselves.
Uphold the Law, another one of their LIES!!!
Law Enforcers, more like Law Breakers..


Yeah, keep calling them pigs, that really helps things! Classify all cops as pigs, just like the idea of classifying All Blacks is gang members and drug dealers, or perhaps you choose to take the position that all blacks can tap dance, sing minstrel songs, and want to be pimps?

You’re helping to feed into the whole same paradigm of hate that caused the events that Dean described in his article!

Wake up!


OK, let’s rephrase this.

These officers were recorded on video beating a man who had surrendered and posed no threat. The fact that they are not in jail right now, and being charged with felony battery in an indictment of our justice system.

These officers are a disgrace to the badge and to not desire to be free in our society, let alone to be law enforcement.

When cops act like they have, it undermines the public’s trust in them.


They are all criminals in a gang, colluding with each other to destroy the rights, property, and lives of Americans. The “good cop” idea goes out the window when the police as a whole stand united behind the cops who did this, and then helped them cover their asses through lies and fabrications. Yes, ALL cops are criminals. Again, how many cops are trying to solve the crimes committed by other cops, and bring those other cops to justice? If you look on video social media platforms, you’ll find tens of thousands of examples of people being accosted and violated… Read more »


Tell you what slick, Next time you get your sorry butt in a wreck, and I mean flipped on your side or pinned inside your rig, maybe you’re bleeding pretty good, don’t call the cops: call BLM or antifa, or maybe call Russian 8, or his anti cop associate jngc whatever, or call some local friends of yours who hate cops as well! I’m sure they’ll drop whatever they’re doing and come right on over before you bleed out are you stroke out, and I’m sure they’ll bring all the equipment they need to pull your butt out of your… Read more »


Weak. You sound frustrated.


No, neither frustrated nor weak: just tired of radical fanatics like you and Jimmy S dimwit!


You still sound like a weak, frustrated, lame, evasive copsucker.

Knute Knute

So what’s your point, Caveman? That because some LEO somewhere investigated a car accident, that that makes assaults OK? That if cops that violate their oaths and their own policies, and yet their dept. allows them to get away with that, that if they pull a different person out of a car wreck a month later, that somehow their other actions become morally OK? All right, let’s run with that idea. If I come upon a burning car and save the occupant’s life… how many felonies do I get to commit now… to balance that good deed out with the… Read more »


You really are truly lackluster thinker I have to say! Nowhere in any response I have ever given to anyone on this platform or any other platform, have I advanced the notion that cops, any cops, from any department, at any level, are to be held in advance from responsibility under the rule of law for their actions! This is the problem fanatics like you, the Russian mindless twit, and jngc whatever whatever, have in common: you hold that the majority, and in the case of the Russian mindless twit all cops, are fully engaged in committing felonies of some… Read more »


You’re right, Neanderthot. Next time JimmyZ’s daughter gets in a fight, don’t call a school “safety” cop!

Mother shot in back of head by school “safety” officer to be taken off life support

School “safety” officer shoots woman in car pulling past him

Last edited 1 year ago by Russn8r

To steal Knute’s point:

How many times does the school “safety” cop have to pull her family out of rigs to make up for murdering her?

Does he get to go free until he gets a chance to pull them out of rigs?

What if they don’t want his “help” getting out of rigs? Can he shoot them for contempt of cop and still get credit for helping?

I twice pulled people out of cars. Do I get to kill 2 people, or does that only work for cops?

Last edited 1 year ago by Russn8r
Country Boy

the moderators should ban the above spammer, prostitute, criminally insane or whatever category NaomiMcClain falls under, from our comments section. Some days there’s more spammers than member posters, and these spammers are trying to give others a a computer virus or worse.

Last edited 1 year ago by Country Boy

Too bad he didn’t take out that entire van of oathbreaking tyrants.


I often wonder what would happen if such a situation occurred to me. The range was 70 feet. I don’t know what a 40mm rubber round feels like, but I probably would not know what had happened to me just after I had been shot. If I was still functional, I am pretty sure I would draw my weapon and return fire. Once I started, I don’t see me stopping any time soon. I can see the passenger and the driver hit. If the rest bailed I can see me detaining them. If they bail with arms in hand I… Read more »


All of the cops who actively joined in the beating of Stallings should be arrested and charged with felony assault, abuse of office under color of authority, and intent to commit bodily harm. They should also be charged with felony collusion to avoid prosecution, stripped of their offices, and it is my hope that Mr Stallings sues the City of Minneapolis for as much money as he can get. Further, Mr Stallings proved that he is prone to anti-white racism, and rather than thinking for himself, he bought into all whites are racists by believing the Mantra of white supremacy,… Read more »


When black people realize they will be held innocent until proved guilty, the trust in the system increases. How about when people realize they will be held innocent ………. Or how about Americans, citizens, society, etc. Damn Dean

Wild Bill

Here in Texas it is well established that one can use the reasonable force necessary to resist arrest if one believes that the police are going to use unnecessary force for the arrest or search. Texas Penal Code9.31(c)(1 and 2).
Better be able to articulate that immediate and reasonable belief. This is Texas!


“The officers cautiously approach Stallings, then viciously beat him with fists and feet for about 30 seconds. Stallings is not resisting. The beating is caught on body cameras.” “There has not been any disciplinary action noted as of the end of the trial.” Why not beat people who are not resisting? The enforcers aren’t going to lose their homes in a civil suit. The taxpayers will pay for their abuse and the enforcers will be encouraged to get more “training.” New training: don’t viciously beat people who are not resisting. That’s right up there with: don’t shoot newspaper delivery ladies when… Read more »

Last edited 1 year ago by JSNMGC

so, I’m glad they aquatinted the man and all, but these officers beat a man (on video) after he had surrendered and posed no threat.

They should all be facing felony battery charges.
Not a slap on the wrist, they need to be in prison. They have disgraced their office and the badge they wear.

2A Gun Guy

What ever happened to Kyle Rittenhouse? Anyone Know?


He is supposed to have a hearing in November.

uncle dudley

There is a difference between protesting and rioting, if any property was destroyed or set on fire it was not a protest it was a riot, rules change from incident to the other.
The police actions were wrong but so was the guy for being there once the curfew was in place.


Sounds like violation of curfew is the only true charge against the man. That being said, there’s no evidence the man was rioting, and curfews are complete and utter BS. If anyone feels strongly enough that they have to stand against whatever injustice they witness, violating a simple draconian curfew is an easy decision to make. I don’t blame this man for a single action he took that night, and his charges should have been dropped/dismissed/acquitted in a whole lot less than 15 months.


The cops perjured themselves even though they knew they were filming themselves. Many enforcers do this – there are hours of proof on Youtube.

Many are so accustomed to lying they do it unconsciously.

I don’t believe one word those enforcers said after it was proven that they lied on police reports. They stick together more than gang members.

Last edited 1 year ago by JSNMGC

Remembe,r though, the curfew was only imposed the night before. That assumes EVERYONE who was thus put under restriction knew about it. How can they be certain everyone in MplsStPaul got the message? That has been a problem with the ever changing “mandates” pouring out of every government’s piehole. Fist you mask then you do’t have to then ou have to indoors then you dont at all, now you have to have the shot to go into a gummmit facility etc. But in this case, I am VERY troubled by the fact that a squad ot thugs emplpyed by the… Read more »


The whole incident could have been avoided if people like Stalling would not have been on the street after a curfew was put in place.
The article does not mention if Stalling was a resident or not. If you look for trouble there’s a good chance, it will find you.


Your feelings are going to be hurt when that dynamic reverses. Scenario: Politicians finally get their way and a law is passed requiring registration of semiautomatic firearms. Tens of millions of Americans refuse to comply (they are now guilty of a felony). Politicians, federal enforcers, and local enforcers agree on a list of “examples” (people with little power and who the media can make up some hyperbolic story about how they are bad people). Enforcers follow orders and attempt to enforce the new law against the people they are ordered to enforce it against (not their family or friends, so… Read more »

Ansel Hazen

“Enforcers find out that guy with little political power had friends.”

Dangerous friends. The kind that have come to realize that continuing to comply with laws that restrict your freedoms only serve to enable tyranny.


Posters who are (or in most cases, were, enforcers) refuse to indicate where they draw the line in terms of what laws enforcers should not enforce when ordered to do so.

One stated unequivocally that enforcers should enforce laws requiring the registration of semiautomatic rifles when those laws are passed.

That person refused to answer the question about whether he thought enforcers should enforce laws completely banning the possession of semiautomatic rifles when those laws are passed.


The whole incident could have been avoided if people like  the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) SWAT team would have had respect for the law, the Constitution, and non-LEO people.



You’re all about the government telling you what you’re allowed to do, huh? Tread on me harder, daddy!