The Raptor’s Roar originally uploaded by Orin Zebest
According to this Dakota County Criminal Complaint, a Prior Lake man was arrested in Burnsville after erratic behavior which led officers to believe he was under the influence of a narcotic. After being forced into his car he began threatening an officer who later noted he, “felt threatened by (the defendant’s) comments.”
The officer observed a male party crossing an intersection against the “no walk” sign. The officer also observed that the man was stumbling and having a hard time walking. The officer approached the man in his squad car and asked the man if he was alright. The officer observed that the man was slurring his words and smelled strongly of an alcoholic beverage but denied drinking anything.
[...]
Officers reported that Wolfswinkel became increasingly uncooperative and his behavior became more unpredictable. The officer reported that he believed Wolfswinkel to be under the influence of a narcotic. Officers attempted to take a preliminary breath sample from Wolfswinkel but he refused and began yelling and swearing at the officers. Officers determined that based on his behavior, Wolfswinkel would be detained and taken to detox.
Two officers attempted to take Wolfswinkel into custody and he immediately started to tense his muscles, resist being taken into custody and continued to yell and scream at the officers. A third officer responded to the scene to help place Wolfswinkel in the back of the squad car. As the officer attempted to search Wolfswinkel for weapons, Wolfswinkel said, “You’re dead next time nigga”. After Wolfswinkel was secured in the back of the squad car, he began to “speak in tongues” and make noises “like a monkey”. Wolfswinkel threatened to kill the officer and his family upon his release from detox. Wolfswinkel also said, “Sorry I let you live” I should have let you call your parents first. Wolfswinkel told the officer that he was going to get all of his “niggas” together to “get him” and told the officer that it would be like being attacked by a raptor.
If you were walking home inebriated do you think an officer stopping and asking you multiple questions would possibly lead to your being asked to take a breathalyzer even though you weren’t operating a motor vehicle and there are no public intoxication laws in MN? As a police officer would you feel you were being seriously threatened, instead of simply laughing out loud at their utter ridiculousness, if someone was so clearly out of their mind that they would “smash their head against the concrete wall” after “speaking in tongues” and saying the violence would be similar to, “being attacked by a raptor”? Whatever you have to say about this one go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
January 5th, 2012 at 8:06 am
The law enforcement officer was careful to document the probable cause in this case – “The officer observed a male party crossing an intersection against the “no walk” sign.” That observed violation of a law gives the officer free reign to proceed as he sees fit. That Mr. Wolfswinkel may not have been sober is his problem, not the officers. And Mr. Wolfswinkel should probably get his moron chip reprogrammed. I’m siding with the cops on this one.
January 5th, 2012 at 8:09 am
I never said the cop was in the wrong stopping him. I just think it’s a bit ridiculous to believe you were being seriously threatened by someone who was totally fucked up.
January 5th, 2012 at 8:11 am
Need to rule out alcohol or chemical abuse to make sure the guy isn’t actually suffering from a severe medical condition, ie: diabetes, stroke, etc. when he goes bat shit crazy, then it is time to get him off the street for a while so he doesn’t hurt someone else.
January 5th, 2012 at 8:15 am
I agree, encounters with cops sometimes escalate to the point of being ridiculous. Most often it’s the citizens problem, not the cops – most of the time. Yes, you make a valid point in previous threads about some cops are jerks – some cops. In this case the citizen was most likely the jerk.
January 5th, 2012 at 8:16 am
C&V – jay walking does not equal free reign for the police. That statement is incorrect on so many levels!! Let’s go extreme here? Free reign to tackle the guy and club him to within an inch of his life? Just pull out the 9 and shoot him? Of course not. No free reign, ever. The officers have rules to play by. In this case, there is nothing to make me believe the officers did not play by the rules if thier report is taken as true.
January 5th, 2012 at 8:19 am
C&V,
I have no doubt that the encounters in the vehicle/jail are as described and the defendant was definitely in the wrong. However I still fail to see how the officer could have possibly believed he was being seriously threatened by someone so utterly inebriated that they believed he couldn’t take care of himself and needed to go to detox. If he was really as messed up as they claim, which he probably was, then he will certainly have little memory of this incident, let alone the threat.
You have not yet provided me with anything which would change my mind.
January 5th, 2012 at 8:20 am
sg,
Yes, pc does not equal free reign. The full quote is: “That observed violation of a law gives the officer free reign to proceed as he sees fit.” So, yes, the cop is held accountable for his/her judgement – as it should be.
January 5th, 2012 at 8:32 am
All I’m doing here is offering a little support for the cops. I’m as liberal as they come, in my miss-spent youth I had several run-ins with law enforcement. (Reference the Charles Stenvig years in Minneapolis.) They have court-defined rules to abide by. Yes, they sometimes skirt the rules, but we citizens have rules to follow as well. If we throw all the rules out it’s anarchy. I know you will not change your mind, Bill, that’s not my purpose here.
January 5th, 2012 at 8:35 am
C&V,
I’m totally behind the cops as far as the pickup and drop in detox. I just don’t know if I agree the threat is a valid one which is what caused the criminal complaint in the first place and elevated this to something which may be noteworthy.
As far as not changing my mind, I think you certainly could if we had more to work with.
January 5th, 2012 at 8:38 am
The complaint stated this guy lists his current address as Prior Lake but Burnsville officers have seen him walking on a number of occasions. What other conversations occured between him and this officer previously? I would think if you are a cop you would have a pretty thick skin and not scare easily; however, perhaps based in the previous encounters the cop has reason to feel threatened. Drunk or not drunk its never a good idea to threaten a cop.
January 5th, 2012 at 8:45 am
I can see how someone would become increasingly hostile, while standing in freezing weather being either drunk/high/diabetic, and being questioned by police trying to find something to arrest you for. It seems pretty clear that the defendant in this case became more hostile as it became evident that he was going to be arrested.
Would any of this happened if the police officer would have given the guy a ticket for Jay walking then either gave him a ride home or stated what he saw and asked if the guy was Okay?
I don’t have a problem with the officer stopping the guy, doing a wellness check, but find it hard to believe the guy would’ve turned erratic without police intervention.
January 5th, 2012 at 8:47 am
I am wondering what is so threatening about being attacked by a raptor? What is supposed to happen to me, getting my ear pecked on or something? Oohh…scary.
Not sure why you chose a picture of a velociraptor in your post. That makes no sense to me.
I suppose the death threat may have more to do with it the charges than the part where the guy wanted to sic a bird on the cops.
January 5th, 2012 at 8:59 am
1. Because it’s almost as hilarious as the cop thinking this guy was really threatening when a white dude is claiming he’s gonna get his “niggas” after you prior to bashing his head against a wall and making noises like a monkey.
2. Because the images of hawks on Flickr which are available for commercial use weren’t very good and certainly weren’t doing anything cool like ripping someone’s ear off.
January 5th, 2012 at 9:06 am
I don’t have much to contribute to the debate currently, I needed another angle.
I am guessing our failed felon is a big fan of Jurassic Park.
January 5th, 2012 at 9:10 am
Rawr.
January 5th, 2012 at 9:11 am
EEK!
January 5th, 2012 at 10:52 am
Cops got this one right imo. Dont see why the threats should not be taken seriously. People need to be responsible for their own actions. As C&V noted, its not the cops fault the guy was drunk and or high and or stoned. Its also worth noting that narcotic use itself is against the law. So, likely, once its ruled out that the guy was not diabetic or having a stroke, he was probably also guilty of some sort of crime related to drugs.
Your argument is the path that leads people to get off for major crimes due to insanity. I did not know what I was doing, so I cant be help responsible for it.
Thats a load of crap.
January 5th, 2012 at 10:59 am
Chad,
I believe you need to be in possession or make a sale of a narcotic to be arrested for it. I cannot find anything in the MN statutes which talks about intoxication from a narcotic as being an arrestable offense unless you’re operating a vehicle or you commit some crime.
Whether crossing against the semaphore is a “crime” worthy of arrest while intoxicated appears to be up to a jury.
January 5th, 2012 at 11:50 am
I think it was reasonable for them to take this threat seriously, if only to be on the record that this guy had threatened him previously, in case a situation like this arises. And he threatened the guy’s family, which, crazy or not, is really disturbing. Whether or not “threatened” was the appropriate word, he showed concern for the crazy ramblings of this guy, and it may also solidify getting this guy into detox to get the help it sounds like he needs.
January 5th, 2012 at 12:12 pm
In answer to the question posed at the end of the article, the only thing I find ridiculous in this whole thing is expecting police officers, people who routinely deal with the biggest dirt bags our society has to offer, to laugh off threats made, repeatedly, against their lives.
January 5th, 2012 at 1:26 pm
I’m sure the police officer might not have actually felt threatened, in the sense that the officer was in the front seat freaking out about a raptor attack. However, threats were made, thus “making someone feel threatened”. Those need to be taken seriously. Sure the drunk/high guy might have been acting and looking like a fool, but all threats made while sitting in the back of a police car need to be taken seriously. People are capable of doing crazy things while sober and pissed at someone for spending a night in jail.
Also, next time you’re walking home from a bar drunk and an officer stops you, it seems it would be in your best interest not to act crazypants and cooperate.
January 5th, 2012 at 4:29 pm
I know nobody has ever gotten drunk/high/stoned and attacked anyone. Its not logical to think that a guy might be able to hurt others when under the influence of various drugs. And he certainly should not be help responsible for his actions while under the influence of these various drugs.
Have to say, this thread is off the mark. The guy got drunk or stoned and went out in public and at the very least made an ass out of himself and put others in danger. Agree or not, stumbling across traffic is dangerous, both to him and others. Thats to say nothing of what might happen had this interaction been with a concerned citizen and not trained police officers with backup.
Its also impossible to not take the threat seriously when the complaint notes that the person was of sufficient physical capacity to require three officers to get him in the squad car.
January 5th, 2012 at 5:15 pm
Chad, quit making so damned much sense. You’re ruining the fun for the conspiracy theorists and police paranoia crowd.
January 5th, 2012 at 5:28 pm
Might just be me but it’s kinda hard to be truly threatening when you’re handcuffed in the back of a squad car and “speaking in tongues” while making noises like a monkey.
If you think that is threatening you’re as ridiculous as this cop was.
January 5th, 2012 at 9:55 pm
no comment
bb
January 6th, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Personally I find it very scary. But that just me I guess.
I guess I dont understand what makes you think it was not an actual threat. Do you feel like given the chance (no handcuffs) the guy would not have physically assaulted the officer or a civilian who may have crossed his path? What if he had stumbled into the side of a car and been unhurt and someone stopped to see if he was ok? Do you think he would have behaved in a rational manner and nobody would have been hurt?
Sorry, you just are not making any sense, and the idea that someone should not be taken seriously, or should not be responsible for their actions because they were drunk/stoned/high is honestly quite odd coming from you. I get that you might not have been frightened by the person, as they were in handcuffs and clearly under the influence, but that makes the person no less dangerous, and does not in any way mean that they would not attempt to make good on the threat.
January 6th, 2012 at 1:11 pm
To me a threat must make you frightened to be worthy of a felony charge. I have nothing else to say about it.
January 6th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
So many responses I could make, but I will just point out that you and Twoboot are in agreement on this one and leave it at that.
January 6th, 2012 at 1:25 pm
Twoboot seems to troll. I’m not attempting to do so. So you can say we’re in agreement but while I don’t want to put words in his mouth, I’m pretty sure it’s for completely different reasons.
January 8th, 2012 at 10:11 am
The raptor is misunderstood. He just wants to cuddle.
January 8th, 2012 at 10:52 pm
Congrats to jorn on comment #200!
January 9th, 2012 at 12:18 pm
I do not try to troll, and that isn’t my intent. I am simply offering my different viewpoint.
In this case, I don’t think that someone who is mentally incapacitated to the point that they are hitting their head against hard surfaces should be charged with a felony over what they say.
January 9th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Point taken Twoboot. People who are extremely drunk, stoned, or high should not be held accountable for their actions.
January 9th, 2012 at 1:37 pm
A drunk person cannot give consent.
But can give up their rights to vote, hold public office, visit Canada because they said things they wouldn’t had if they had a clear mind, after being roughed up by police officers after having symptoms of a diabetic reaction.
January 9th, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Did someone force the person to drink? Did someone force them to go walk around in traffic? Did someone force them to threaten the life of an officer and his family? Did someone force them to use racial slurs and cause THEMSELVES bodily harm?
Nope.
We are, each and every single one of us, responsible for our own actions. The sooner we all realize that, the sooner we can get on with leaving a better world for our children.
January 9th, 2012 at 1:53 pm
1. You don’t know the guy was drunk/high and just not diabetic. (unless you know more about this than we do)
2. He used the crosswalk. Have you ever been in Downtown Minneapolis? Most people don’t follow the Walk/Don’t Walk.
If police didn’t escalate the situation he could’ve walked home and went to sleep.
January 9th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
Chad, don’t bother. After 65 posts, it should be obvious to you that this guy isn’t playing with the same number of cards in his deck. His logic holds about as much water as a basketball net. The lights are on but nobody’s home.
January 9th, 2012 at 2:33 pm
Twoboot, you are correct. The police should have let him walk around in traffic. Clearly it was their fault that this happened to him.
On the plus side, Bill and Twoboot are clearly in agrement on this topic, so I feel like I have been given a great gift.
January 9th, 2012 at 2:42 pm
At that point Darwin may have won and we would have been better off for it.
January 9th, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Maybe twoboot is Wolfswinkel.
January 9th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
Bill, I strongly agree with that sentiment.
January 10th, 2012 at 8:48 am
I do not know why whomever drafted the complaint felt it necessary to include the officer’s feelings of actually being threatened. It appears to be irrelevant. The statute says: “Whoever threatens, directly or indirectly, to commit any crime of violence with purpose to terrorize another [...], or in a reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror [...] may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both. [...] It only matters that a threat be made when context is considered. The officers subjective fear is relevant evidence of context, I suppose, but I think a threat made in the context of an arrest does not get the benefit that telling your best friend who spilled soda on your video game “Dude, I’m gonna kill you!” might get. According to existing case law, an instruction concerning voluntary intoxication can be given for a charge of threatening with “purpose”, as there is an intent issue there. A charge for recklessly making the threat, however, does not get the benefit of the instruction.