Australian Justine Damond shot dead by US police in Minneapolis

BLM are justified in their views though because when they get shot, police were doing their job, but when a white woman is shot suddenly people are up in arms about trigger happy police.

Not sure what you mean by "up in arms." There is an acceptable amount of outrage for an unarmed woman in PJs being shot dead for no reason. There are no mass protests, or white snipers on rooftops trying to take out black cops. Also many of the cases that BLM goes ballistic about are hardly as simple as this. When a black man in a car says he is carrying a gun.. and then reaches into his coat, and gets shot, that's quite a bit different than a white woman standing by a cop car, and the driver shoots across his partner's body to kill her. Not saying the cops are right, or "doing their jobs," but there is a larger room for error that might explain it. And certainly explains it enough where black people don't need to storm into the streets about the injustice, which seems to be the case, no matter what the evidence.

Also I personally think in many cases, no matter white or black, there are more cops now, on a tighter budget, which means more inexperienced cops with less oversight than in the past. Which will mean more mistakes, more "scared" cops reacting instead of analyzing a situation, less cops being reviewed for complaints and issues that might lead to bigger problems, etc.

a reply to: GusMcDangerthing

Why on earth would I ever choose to be the scum of the earth?

So all police officers are Scum of the earth?

What use are laws if the law makers ignore them or create them with malicious agenda and the law enforcers flout them?

Those laws seem so far, to have kept "purge" like activity from happening......regardless of the fact that YES its flawed, and YES there are certain groups of people that have been able to buy or influence their way out, its not completely without merit.......

I'm honestly just wondering what the spark will be that eventually lights the tinderbox. For me it was a few years ago that I would have been prepared to go down guns blazing,

I find that people who talk like this havent actually been in a situation to really see what this kind of violence and bloodletting would really be like......nor what it would mean for your families , friends or loved ones, who would eventually end up in the cross-hairs......

I'm not kidding around when I try to impress on people that this is a serious thing, beyond a simple murder of a civilian - as though that wasn't enough of a serious issue in itself.

Of course its a serious thing, and I agree that people should be much more aware, and there should be much more effort taken, from the grassroots all the way to the gov, on reforming and imposing harsher sentences on those in uniform who break the law.....after all they are suppose to be the pentacle of what civilians should be law wise......

However , advocating for blood in the streets I can tell you now will not correct it.....

I never presume to tell anyone how to be, but honestly I think you need to rethink your process here and your approach....

I know its hard not to be very angry at all this, I have had my run-ins too with corrupt police and officials, and have seen things happen to friends and family that was clearly not above board......

But there are really good people out there, really good officers and people that love their job and do it to help their communities stay safe, Id wager the majority of them are like that.....and them, and their families dont deserve to be targeted for death because someone else is angry at what a corrupt officer did........that would make you no better than the corrupt police officer taking his anger out on an innocent person and shooting them dead.....

a reply to: Timely

Tell us how this could possibly be jusified as an action a Policeman should take

Who said it was justified?

I see "due process" being bandied about by the PD sympathisers.

So our rights as citizens are now negotiable depending on how angry you are? How does that make you any different than a cop executing a "suspect"?

Again.....it doesnt make someone a "sympathizer" just because they advocate for following the law, even when others clearly arent.....

originally posted by: GusMcDangerthing
I did not say otherwise in my post and I invite you to read it again and if you still are under the mistaken impression otherwise, to quote me and I'll explain myself to you more specifically.

It is not ironic to advocate for the punishment of cold-blooded murderers, which this despicable filth of a 'man' clearly is - at least not to me. You should continue to feel free to be outraged about the things that you find outrageous and I'll do the same here.

I and many, many others certainly will wait for the investigation to be conducted and completed and I'm very interested in what sort of result they come out with. I imagine this department and especially the murderer are quietly shtting themselves and they ought to be.

so when you said -

originally posted by: GusMcDangerthing
They are not the accused, they are a police officer in the employ of the state.

You meant something else other than they arent the accused?


ok........

As for the other posts making wild and baseless accusations I find it ironic you excuse your own behavior when you clearly have issues with said behavior coming from law enforcement. As for others who think they know what they are talking about when it comes to requirements for police equipment save it. You have no clue as to what you are talking about.

Ignorance is a choice.

Wait for the investigation.

The silence is damming! The closing of ranks and colleagues a sickening travesty! The execution (and let's not be coy here, it was an execution) of Justine was simply barbaric. Yet the insult upon her continues, carried on and played out by the police department as they try to bring damage control to the atrocity.

Are we to actually believe that their cameras were not on? What if they were? What if the police department don't want to show the scenes because they think the reputation of the police department is more important? After all, Justine has been slaughtered, and nothing is going to bring her back, so they may think damage control and try to achieve the lightest sentence they can, because obviously, someone has to take a fall.

Clearly, things were said and stated between the officers about Justine which made Noor open fire on her. Noor didn't just start shooting right out the blue across the body of his partner and through the window at Justine. I think Noor's partner said something, a joke or jest, such as "She's got a gun!", or "She's carrying!" that made Noor believe she was an immediate threat and caused him to fire? The clues to this scenario are in the 'panic' after the shooting trying to revive Justine. The exchanges on the radio also give hints of lethal error and utter incredulous panic.

The police department already know full well what happened, because Noor's partner would've spilled the beans at the soonest moment he had to relate the event to his immediate boss. So damaging is this to the police department as whole, because it tars all the cops with the same brush, that they have resorted to the excuse of 'hearing a firework' (obviously coming from Justine's direction...perhaps she also had a lit sparkler?)! It shows nothing but utter contempt for Justine!

a reply to: Timely

She wasnt afforded due process since it has nothing to do with what occurred. If your going to bitch about the police you may want to learn something about the system your trying to attack.

Also generalizing does nothing but place you into the same category as you accuse the officers of.

but why worry about facts and hypocrisy right...

a reply to: elysiumfire

Really?

only 2 officers were present.
They were in the same car.
The driver (non shooter) gave statements to investigators questioning the officer who fired actions.
The criminal investigation has been turned over to different department.
An IA investigation is being conducted.
A civil rights violation investigation will occur.
The officer who fired is the only one not cooperating and we dont know if he will or not.

Care to make any more accusations that arent supported by fact? Care to explain to us how you know what the officers said to each other and when they concocted this conspiracy your peddling?

The only ones tarring all cops would be paranoid individuals, such as yourself.

Maybe you should let the investigation runs its course... or at the very least contact the department so you can testify as to what you know about the officers, what they said in the car, the plan they hatched etc.

a reply to: EvillerBob

Don't go on about due process..too bad the innocent woman did not get 'due process" and I'm not advocating anything..just pointing out will technicalities such as batteries are being discussed a whole bunch of lives have been permanently shattered..AN INNOCENT WOMAN KILLED..don't lose sight of that.

a reply to: vonclod

Due process deals with the administration of justice towards the accused. Just so we are all on the same page and up to date.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I know..just venting, I think at times people going on about technicalities lose sight of just how many peoples live have been touched/ruined
Peace.

Xcathdra:

Really?

Yes...really.

only 2 officers were present. They were in the same car.

Clearly, there's no getting anything past you, Sherlock!

Care to make any more accusations that aren't supported by fact?

With that cop's silence (was he told not to say anything?) I feel entitled to speculate a more plausible scenario. Do you actually think that maybe the guy just went totally berserk, and that his partner is entirely innocent? Until the silence is broken, I will continue to speculate based on what is already known.

The only ones tarring all cops would be paranoid individuals, such as yourself.

No paranoia here, pal. Just straight forward implications from what is known. I don't believe this guy went berserk, he reacted to something his partner said? No other scenario fits the event? By the way, please note the question marks I apply.

Maybe you should let the investigation runs its course...

Absolutely not! I don't believe the investigation or the conclusion from it, will be worthy of the Justice that Justine deserves. It's America remember, life is cheap there. Only guns and more guns are important. Nah. both the cops and the police department in general fully deserve the vilification that is being slung at them!

...the plan they hatched...

Now who is being paranoid? Where (and just how) are you able to say that I stated they planned anything?

i think the guy who shot the woman was actually trying to kill his partner.
why else would he shoot across the driver's chest? and of course the driver was stunned: wouldnt the noise and light shock everyone? and that close to their body?
i would have probably also died of shock - cardiac arrest right then and there.

RIP the woman and i hope those "cops" get what they deserve.

there are quite "a few explanations possible" that would fit a few short fiction novels...

a reply to: elysiumfire

Right... going down swinging based on pride and an inability to admit your wrong also doesnt help your position.

Wait for the investigation instead of speculating and making things up.

I have come up with a new question. When a police officer fires their weapon, are they debrief every single time? I thought that this was common procedure for anytime a police officer fires a weapon on duty. Thus, saying he has not allowed himself to be interviewed seems misleading. Wouldn't the officer have to be debriefed immediately after the shooting incident as a matter of proper procedure? I just assumed that this is a common practice across all police forces in the USA.

By the way I also think we should all wait for the official investigation to be completed before getting too excited. Once the official investigation is complete more examination of the evidence can occur and also a private investigation can then be held.

Kryscent:

I think the guy who shot the woman was actually trying to kill his partner.

He might as well have done, with the amount of lives this guy has ruined! However, if that was the case, why not shoot him immediately after shooting Justine?

There are quite "a few explanations possible" that would fit a few short fiction novels...

Indeed. Until the guy talks a few will be written. Yet, why stay purposely silent? I don't think he is being purposely silent, I think he has been told not to say anything beyond police department representatives, while they concoct suitable damage control to the department itself?

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Xcathdra

I know..just venting, I think at times people going on about technicalities lose sight of just how many peoples live have been touched/ruined
Peace.

It's not a technicality to want the same rights for everyone including the cop....

Following the law and our rights as citizens of the United States should never stop just because we are angry

Xcathdra

...going down swinging based on pride and an inability to admit your wrong.

How do you know I am wrong? What information of fact do you have (apart from your own opinion) that proves me wrong?

ManBehindTheMask:

Following the law and our rights as citizens of the United States should never stop just because we are angry.

Maybe it is because anger is being shown due to the fact that this senseless 'death by cop' is not an isolated case, nor is it in one city alone, but across most if not all American cities. The debate is wide and doesn't just cover a single isolated case, although when these events occur they are treated in isolation, but the problem is wide-ranging. The picture of the bigger problem needs to be addressed, otherwise it is just going to continue.

No doubt, the investigation will be carried out, a conclusion drawn, and everybody will have come to know something...but of course, nothing learned or implemented.

a reply to: feldercarb

Yes they are. What people dont understand is in addition to their miranda rights, law enforcement is also covered under something called garrity rights. Because law enforcement uses a command structure, we can be ordered to provide information during an internal affairs portion of an investigation. Any information gleaned in that investigation, generally, cannot be used against the officer in a criminal investigation.

Not cooperating with a criminal investigation when they are the subject of the investigation is not criminal.
Failing to comply with an order during an IA investigation can result in the officer being found "guilty" in said investigation. The expectation is an officer will have nothing to hide during an IA investigation and therefore must cooperate.

An IA investigation is reversed from people are used to. In those investigations an officer is essentially guilty until proven innocent. Its incumbent on the officer to justify his actions. IA solely deals with procedural violations. An officer who is found to have violated policy can find themselves without the civil immunity protections. The city can disassociate themselves from the officer, placing a large chunk of the burden on judgments squarely on their shoulders. It means the city nor any police association are required to cover legal expenses or judgement awards on behalf of the officer.