Just another cop killing someone

[Fiannan]

I doubt there will be any protests over this:

https://www.rt.com/usa/396584-minneapol ... sie-woman/

I just wonder though, shouldn't cops be automatically fired if they have contact with civilians and don't have their video cameras on? I have no idea why he shot her, but I guess, like most suspicious cases, there will be a prolonged investigation, and people will forget about it and things will go back to normal. Just my guess.

[inho]

Do the police usually have their body cameras on all the time? I read that they were still sitting in their car and she was speaking to them through the driver's side door when he shot her from the passenger seat.

[Fiannan]

Do the police usually have their body cameras on all the time? I read that they were still sitting in their car and she was speaking to them through the driver's side door when he shot her from the passenger seat.

And if true he deserves to be tried for murder.

[Gage]

The cop is a Somali immigrant and the victim a white lady, nothing to see here. Most media wont cover it, this is one time the media will be on the side of the cop.

[MMbelieve]

Cops killing people is getting more attention these days so we tend to think it's happening more.

But...I have heard enough stories of people being mistreated, punished, killed for asking cops for help that it makes me weary of calling them. And that's sad, losing faith in those employed to protect us from "bad people"

[Gage]

What incidents are you referring to where cops are killing people for asking them for help? Do you mean the black female that confronted cops with a knife? Or the man that went for his gun when he was told to sit still? This is actually the first incident that I have heard of that looks like it was bad judgement by the cop. I dont know anything about the cop but wonder if he is a "quota" hire and lacked experience.

[mirkwood]

Do the police usually have their body cameras on all the time?

Nope. Not every officer even has a body cam.

[Elizabeth]

"Justine Damond, 40, was shot in the abdomen by officer Mohammed Noor after she called 911 to report what she believed was an "active sexual assault" in an alley near her Minneapolis home.

Dressed in her pyjamas, Justine Damond reportedly approached the driver's side window of the police car when it arrived in the alley.

Officer Mohammed Noor then reportedly fired multiple shots from the passenger seat across his partner, killing Justine Damond.

The Hennepin County Medical Examiner has classified the death as a homicide.

Authorities have confirmed Justine Damond was not carrying a weapon. She may have been holding a mobile phone, which was reportedly found near her body.

Police statement advised that the "officers' body cameras were not turned on at the time and the squad camera did not capture the incident".

[Fiannan]

Dressed in her pyjamas, Justine Damond reportedly approached the driver's side window of the police car when it arrived in the alley.

Maybe Officer Mohammed believed she was immodestly dressed.

[h_p]

Do the police usually have their body cameras on all the time?

Nope. Not every officer even has a body cam.

Sounds like in Minnesota, they're supposed to, and they have some pretty specific policies that would have helped get to the bottom of this situation. That's a big red flag to me: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/18/qu ... woman.html

The Minneapolis police officers who arrived at Justine Damond’s home shortly before she was shot and killed on Saturday did not have their body cameras on -- in violation of department policy -- and the American Civil Liberties Union wants to know why.

The Minneapolis Police Dept. requires any officer involved in using force to activate a body camera, The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported late Sunday, noting that, when activated, the body cameras feature a 30-second buffer -- which allows whatever occurred in the crucial 30 seconds before the camera was activated to still be recorded. The ACLU has called for penalties against the officers for not starting their units.

[Matchmaker]

"Justine Damond, 40, was shot in the abdomen by officer Mohammed Noor after she called 911 to report what she believed was an "active sexual assault" in an alley near her Minneapolis home.

Dressed in her pyjamas, Justine Damond reportedly approached the driver's side window of the police car when it arrived in the alley.

Officer Mohammed Noor then reportedly fired multiple shots from the passenger seat across his partner, killing Justine Damond.

The Hennepin County Medical Examiner has classified the death as a homicide.

Authorities have confirmed Justine Damond was not carrying a weapon. She may have been holding a mobile phone, which was reportedly found near her body.

Police statement advised that the "officers' body cameras were not turned on at the time and the squad camera did not capture the incident".

Multiple shots to the body is no accident! It's murder, or at the least involuntary manslaughter. The motive is the real question they need to be looking at. Regardless, the defenseless woman is dead and the officer needs to spend years behind bars, just like any of the rest of us would if we negligently shot and killed someone for no good reason.

[h_p]

Matchmaker, I know it may sound a little ridiculous, but it's possible the shooting could be justified. The difference is in the details of the incident and the wording of the laws of the state--but in general, if a person is in reasonable fear for his/her life, they're justified in using deadly force. For example, if someone points a fake gun at you, and you have no way to tell it's fake, you are justified in defending yourself, even though your attacker is technically unarmed.

For my money, though, the fact that their cameras were never turned on merits a very jaundiced eye towards his actions. To me, that shows intent to hide evidence. We non-cop peons wouldn't get the benefit of the doubt in that situation, so neither should he.

FWIW, here's an interesting take on the matter: http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.co ... -sign.html

[mirkwood]

Matchmaker, I know it may sound a little ridiculous, but it's possible the shooting could be justified. The difference is in the details of the incident and the wording of the laws of the state--but in general, if a person is in reasonable fear for his/her life, they're justified in using deadly force. For example, if someone points a fake gun at you, and you have no way to tell it's fake, you are justified in defending yourself, even though your attacker is technically unarmed.

Highlights for illustration purposes below. Your point above is also correct.

For my money, though, the fact that their cameras were never turned on merits a very jaundiced eye towards his actions. To me, that shows intent to hide evidence.

Really? What if upon arrival in front of the house the woman walked out the front door pointing the aforementioned fake gun (or a real one) as the officer arrived. Would it be reasonable in this case to waste time turning on your body cam before engaging the threat? The answer is no for those of you who can't figure that one out.

We non-cop peons wouldn't get the benefit of the doubt in that situation, so neither should he.

Not true at all. Very few non police involved shootings involve any sort of video. Your assertion is inaccurate at best.

[inho]

The Minneapolis Police Dept. requires any officer involved in using force to activate a body camera, The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported late Sunday, noting that, when activated, the body cameras feature a 30-second buffer -- which allows whatever occurred in the crucial 30 seconds before the camera was activated to still be recorded. The ACLU has called for penalties against the officers for not starting their units.

So this is why several articles said that they should have at least turned cameras on right after the shooting. This buffer is actually a clever thing. Some times things happen so quickly that there is no time to turn the camera on, but thanks to the buffer it is enough if you turn it on right after the situation.

[Fiannan]

Really? What if upon arrival in front of the house the woman walked out the front door pointing the aforementioned fake gun (or a real one) as the officer arrived. Would it be reasonable in this case to waste time turning on your body cam before engaging the threat? The answer is no for those of you who can't figure that one out.

Yeah, a 40 year old professional yoga instructor in her pajamas. Look, he pumped bullets into this woman who was the one who called the police in the first place to report a possible sexual assault taking place in a nearby alley. How in the world can anyone think of any scenario that justified this cop's behavior?

[Fiannan]

If this dude gets off then I suggest we replace any logo on police badges with "License to kill. Be warned."

[h_p]

Really? What if upon arrival in front of the house the woman walked out the front door pointing the aforementioned fake gun (or a real one) as the officer arrived. Would it be reasonable in this case to waste time turning on your body cam before engaging the threat? The answer is no for those of you who can't figure that one out.

Unless the article I linked is inaccurate, he should have turned on the camera immediately after the shooting per department policy. I don't know what your department's policy is, but that's what it is in Minneapolis. It would have shown the previous 30 seconds, which I would think could have captured something useful.

[eddie]

I understand how on guard officers need to be these days, but somehow they have got to differinciate between a hardened criminal and someone needing help.

I live in Idaho and I've never seen more anal cops, what the hell, we citizens pay their wages! I will never call an officer to my home, they just cause more trouble with their nonsense and brow beatings, with any luck you won't be shot!

[mirkwood]

Unless the article I linked is inaccurate, he should have turned on the camera immediately after the shooting per department policy. I don't know what your department's policy is, but that's what it is in Minneapolis. It would have shown the previous 30 seconds, which I would think could have captured something useful.

There are many things that could cause a distraction that prevents the camera going on 30 seconds prior to arrival, followed by an immediate need to respond which precludes the time to turn it on. I don't have a body cam, but almost my whole crew does (not everyone has one). Turning it on as you get out of your car when you arrive would typically give you FAR more than the 30 seconds in that policy. That is what my partners do. Arrive, get out of the car, turn it on, approach the house/car/store, _______. That is more then reasonable. If someone on my crew was engaged in a use of force upon arrival at the call 99.9% likelihood that the body cam is not on yet.

Post shooting, thinking about turning on a body cam is one of the last things you would even have on your mind. Again, not unreasonable.

[h_p]

Would you agree that it should at least deserve some extra scrutiny?

[Serragon]

I can see no way in which this shooting could be considered legitimate.

She was unarmed and was therefore not threatening. Even if the officers thought the cell phone was a gun, she obviously wasn't threatening them with it.

You have a right to bear arms, not just have them. Police cannot shoot you simply because you have a gun in your hand, although in practice it appears they can shoot you for any reason as long as they are "scared".

Think about it. You as a citizen are not allowed to shoot someone because you are scared, but a professional who is trained for these situations is.

[mirkwood]

Would you agree that it should at least deserve some extra scrutiny?

No.

All shootings should be scrutinized, whether the shooter was a police officer or not.

Funny thing about that...they all get scrutinized.

[h_p]

Would you agree that it should at least deserve some extra scrutiny?

No.

All shootings should be scrutinized, whether the shooter was a police officer or not.

Funny thing about that...they all get scrutinized.

I'm sure they do. What I hope does not happen is that the people doing the scrutinizing don't just write off the fact that he never turned on his body cam per dept. policy because they think that it's not unreasonable. It should be viewed with suspicion. That's all I'm trying to get at.

[h_p]

She was unarmed and was therefore not threatening. Even if the officers thought the cell phone was a gun, she obviously wasn't threatening them with it.

That's not how the law is written, though, but it's a common misconception. Here's what I think is the relevant Minnesota statute. It means that someone doesn't actually have to be threatening before force is authorized. It gets really complicated to untangle all the facts surrounding a shooting because of this, because you have to figure out what was actually going through a person's mind, but I agree with it. Intent is usually factored into the laws, for good reason.

For example, there's a youtube channel where they like to prank people by doing crazy things like chasing them with chainsaws and guns. The victim has very good reason to believe their life is in danger, but they have no way of knowing that the prankster has no intention of actually harming them. If the law wasn't written the way it is below, the general public gets put at a severe legal disadvantage, and would have to assume they are not allowed to defend themselves unless harm is actually being done to them--like getting cut or shot first--before they can fight back.

609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.
Subdivision 1.When authorized.
Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 2, reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other's consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist:
(1) when used by a public officer or one assisting a public officer under the public officer's direction:
(a) in effecting a lawful arrest; or
(b) in the execution of legal process; or
(c) in enforcing an order of the court; or
(d) in executing any other duty imposed upon the public officer by law;

[Serragon]

She was unarmed and was therefore not threatening. Even if the officers thought the cell phone was a gun, she obviously wasn't threatening them with it.

That's not how the law is written, though, but it's a common misconception. Here's what I think is the relevant Minnesota statute. It means that someone doesn't actually have to be threatening before force is authorized. It gets really complicated to untangle all the facts surrounding a shooting because of this, because you have to figure out what was actually going through a person's mind, but I agree with it. Intent is usually factored into the laws, for good reason.

For example, there's a youtube channel where they like to prank people by doing crazy things like chasing them with chainsaws and guns. The victim has very good reason to believe their life is in danger, but they have no way of knowing that the prankster has no intention of actually harming them. If the law wasn't written the way it is below, the general public gets put at a severe legal disadvantage, and would have to assume they are not allowed to defend themselves unless harm is actually being done to them--like getting cut or shot first--before they can fight back.

609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.
Subdivision 1.When authorized.
Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 2, reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other's consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist:
(1) when used by a public officer or one assisting a public officer under the public officer's direction:
(a) in effecting a lawful arrest; or
(b) in the execution of legal process; or
(c) in enforcing an order of the court; or
(d) in executing any other duty imposed upon the public officer by law;

I understand the law. There was no misconception. The law is the basis of my point. the law in this case is unjust.

The law gives the state powers that you don't have. An officer can shoot you for most any reason and get away with it as long as they are on duty. You cannot.

It is about time we nullify these ridiculous laws and start holding state officials to the same standard we have to abide.