MINNEAPOLIMEDIA NEWS | Minneapolis to Pay More Than $2 Million to Six People in Police Excessive Force Case From 2020 Unrest

Six people who say Minneapolis police fired projectiles and used pepper spray against them while they protected a Lake Street gas station will receive compensation under newly filed judgments that do not constitute an admission of liability.

MINNEAPOLIS, MN (October 14, 2026). More than six years after the killing of George Floyd and the civil unrest that followed, Minneapolis has agreed to pay more than $2 million to six people who accused police officers of using excessive force against them while they were attempting to protect a neighborhood gas station from further destruction.

The judgments, filed in court Monday, October 12, resolve claims arising from an encounter on May 30, 2020, involving members of a Minneapolis Police Department SWAT unit operating in the area of East Lake Street and 17th Avenue South.

The six plaintiffs alleged that officers fired 40-millimeter marking projectiles and used pepper spray against them even though they were gathered outside a business they were trying to protect.

The city's agreement to pay does not amount to an admission of wrongdoing. Nevertheless, the case adds another substantial financial obligation to the city's continuing legal costs arising from police conduct during the unrest.

The judgments come at a time when Minneapolis remains subject to a state court-enforceable police reform agreement intended to address excessive force, discriminatory policing, supervision and accountability.

They Were Protecting a Business That Had Already Been Looted

The encounter occurred outside the Stop-N-Shop gas station, near the intersection of East Lake Street and 17th Avenue South.

The business had been looted the previous night, amid widespread property destruction following Floyd's murder by a Minneapolis police officer on May 25, 2020.

According to the lawsuit and subsequent reporting, station owner Assad Awaijane gathered with relatives and friends outside the property on May 30. They were watching over the business and had organized a cookout while attempting to discourage further looting.

The six plaintiffs were Assad Awaijane, Robert Awaijane, Anisse Campbell, Darius Campbell, Wayne Green and Merrick Jackson.

They filed their lawsuit in 2023, naming the city and several police officers.

The plaintiffs alleged that their constitutional rights were violated when officers approached in an unmarked vehicle and opened fire with projectiles.

According to their account, they initially believed they were being shot at with conventional firearms. Their lawsuit described intense fear and psychological distress arising from the encounter.

The distinction between the projectiles used by police and live ammunition is important. The 40-millimeter rounds were designed as less-lethal weapons, but such munitions can cause serious injuries, particularly when used improperly or fired at vulnerable parts of the body.

The plaintiffs alleged that they had not presented a threat justifying the force used against them.

What Police Body-Camera Footage Revealed

The incident involved Minneapolis police SWAT Unit 1281, whose actions during the 2020 unrest have been examined in multiple legal proceedings.

According to reporting based on police body-camera footage, officers were traveling through Minneapolis in an unmarked white van and firing marking rounds at people outside during the city's curfew.

As the vehicle approached the gas station, officers fired projectiles toward those gathered outside.

The Minnesota Star Tribune reported that several people were struck and that two individuals who surrendered were pepper-sprayed.

Members of a Vice News reporting crew were also present.

Video evidence described in previous reporting showed an encounter involving journalists who identified themselves as members of the press.

The officers' conduct raised questions extending beyond the circumstances of the gas station itself, including whether police adequately distinguished between people engaged in unlawful activity, residents protecting property, journalists and others present in public spaces during the emergency.

The plaintiffs' allegations focused on whether officers had a lawful justification for using force against people who were not threatening them.

Those questions became central to the subsequent civil litigation.

A Connection to the Jaleel Stallings Case

The same SWAT unit was involved in another widely examined incident that night.

A short distance from the gas station, officers encountered Jaleel Stallings, an Army veteran who later said he did not realize the people firing projectiles from an unmarked van were police officers.

Stallings fired his legally possessed handgun toward the vehicle before officers identified themselves.

He subsequently surrendered and was assaulted by an officer.

Stallings was prosecuted on eight charges, including attempted murder of a police officer, but was acquitted.

He later filed a civil lawsuit against Minneapolis and received a $1.5 million settlement.

One of the officers involved, Justin Stetson, was convicted in 2023 of assaulting Stallings after his surrender.

The Stallings case became an important example of how police tactics during the unrest generated consequences extending well beyond the immediate encounters.

It also provided additional scrutiny of SWAT Unit 1281 and the department's handling of people who were outside during the curfew.

The latest judgments concern a separate group of plaintiffs and a separate encounter, although both cases arose from the same police operation.

Why the City Refused to Defend Five Officers

One of the most unusual aspects of the gas station lawsuit involved the city's decision not to provide legal defense and indemnification to five officers named in the case.

Indemnification generally refers to an employer's obligation, under applicable law and circumstances, to protect employees against certain legal liabilities arising from their official duties.

Municipal employees are not necessarily entitled to that protection in every situation.

Minnesota law provides exceptions involving misconduct, including circumstances associated with malfeasance, willful neglect of duty or bad faith.

The dispute reached the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which upheld the city's position that it was not required to defend the five officers.

The appellate ruling addressed the officers' entitlement to municipal legal protection. It should not be confused with the city's separate decision to resolve the plaintiffs' claims through judgments.

The distinction matters because the litigation raised two related but different questions.

The first concerned whether the plaintiffs' constitutional rights had been violated.

The second concerned who should bear the legal and financial consequences when officers are accused of acting outside the protections normally available to public employees.

The city's refusal to indemnify the officers was an unusual development in litigation arising from the 2020 unrest.

But the resulting judgments still leave Minneapolis responsible for a substantial payment to the six plaintiffs.

Taxpayers Face Another Multimillion-Dollar Obligation

Minneapolis is self-insured, meaning the city bears substantial responsibility for paying judgments and settlements arising from claims against it.

The latest judgments exceed $2 million, with additional attorneys' fees and litigation costs also potentially increasing the total financial obligation.

The exact final cost will depend on the amounts ultimately paid under the judgments and related fee arrangements.

The payment adds to a series of settlements and judgments involving police actions during and after the unrest.

In 2022, the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota announced a $600,000 settlement of a class-action lawsuit involving people injured during demonstrations following Floyd's murder.

That agreement also included restrictions on police responses to lawful protests and demonstrations.

Other cases have resulted in larger individual payments, including the $1.5 million Stallings settlement and a $2.4 million payment to Soren Stevenson, who lost an eye after being struck by a police projectile during a protest.

Taken together, these cases demonstrate the continuing financial consequences of police actions undertaken during the emergency.

They also raise a question for city government: how should Minneapolis account for the long-term costs of police misconduct claims when evaluating its public safety budget, training practices and accountability systems?

The financial implications extend beyond compensation to individual plaintiffs.

Money used to satisfy judgments and settlements is money that cannot simultaneously be allocated to other municipal priorities.

At the same time, civil litigation provides an established mechanism for people to seek compensation when they allege that government officials violated their rights.

The Case Arrives Amid Continuing Police Reform

Minneapolis remains engaged in a court-enforceable settlement agreement with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights.

The agreement followed a state investigation that found probable cause to believe the city and its police department had engaged in a pattern or practice of racial discrimination.

Approved in 2023, the settlement establishes requirements involving use of force, training, supervision, accountability, data collection and other policing practices.

An independent evaluator, Effective Law Enforcement For All, has been assigned to assess the city's progress.

The state agreement remains an important part of Minneapolis' effort to address longstanding concerns about policing.

The federal reform process followed a different path.

In January 2025, the city and the U.S. Department of Justice announced a proposed federal consent decree intended to address constitutional violations identified in the Justice Department's investigation.

However, the federal government subsequently moved to dismiss the case, and a judge granted that request in May 2025.

Mayor Jacob Frey later issued an executive order reaffirming the city's commitment to reforms outlined in the proposed federal agreement.

These developments mean the city's reform obligations and commitments arise from several different sources, including the enforceable state agreement, municipal policies and executive action.

The latest judgments do not themselves establish whether Minneapolis is complying with those reforms.

They do, however, demonstrate that the legal consequences of earlier police conduct remain unresolved years after the underlying events.

Six Years Later, the Questions Remain

The May 30, 2020, encounter occurred during an extraordinary period in Minneapolis.

Floyd's murder had prompted mass demonstrations, widespread anger over policing and substantial damage to businesses and public property.

Police officers were operating under emergency conditions, while residents and business owners faced immediate concerns about personal safety and property destruction.

Those circumstances form an essential part of the historical record.

They do not, however, eliminate the legal obligation to use force within constitutional limits.

The plaintiffs in the gas station case maintained that they were trying to protect a neighborhood business when officers attacked them.

Minneapolis has now agreed to resolve their claims through judgments exceeding $2 million, without admitting liability.

For the six plaintiffs, the resolution brings a significant stage of litigation to an end.

For the city, it adds another financial obligation and another episode to the continuing examination of police conduct during the unrest.

And for Minneapolis residents, it underscores the importance of evaluating not only the policies adopted since 2020, but whether those policies are producing meaningful changes in police conduct, supervision and accountability.

❤️ SUPPORT MINNEAPOLIMEDIA

STAY CONNECTED TO MINNEAPOLIMEDIA

Local stories matter. Subscribe free to MinneapoliMedia and receive independent news, community reporting and important updates from Minneapolis, the North Metro and communities across Minnesota.

SUBSCRIBE FREE: https://minneapolimedia.town.news/subscribe

MinneapoliMedia | Community. Culture. Civic Life