Australian Justine Damond shot dead by US police in Minneapolis

originally posted by: tabularosa
a reply to: AMPTAH
But we can start by disarming the police. Clearly many officers are either abusing their power or inappropriately using deadly force. That any unarmed or innocent citizens would be shot to death by those charged to protect and serve should be a call for action.

Well, one solution is to remove all "deadly force" weapons from the police entirely.

Arm all officers with "non-lethal weapons" only.

After all, the cops are supposed to "protect" both the "victim" AND the "perpetrator", in order for the justice system to work properly. The accused is entitled to have his day in court, to explain his actions, and not to be gunned down and buried, before anyone gets to hear the "reasons" for the events that unfolded.

When the "perpetrator" is killed, the story is easily "spun" to the benefit of the "survivor". That introduces a preferential bias into justice, that never hears the "counter argument."

It's probably one of the main reasons cops kill too, because then it's only their side of the story that gets told. That is, until cell phones and everybody taking pictures of LEOs in action.

If we train cops to master the use and deployment of non-lethal weaponry, then all the killings will stop. We'll have a better society at the end of it, because we will know "why things happen" in each circumstance. And that "feedback" will lead to better laws and resolutions over time.

a reply to: gort51

Thats true if you're a disrespectful jackass. They would do that to you. However 99% of peoples interactions are not like that at all.

a reply to: clearmind

Negligent discharge? They are playing a re-enactment type video of this on our local news channel and this is unmistakably an execution style killing AND he shot across the front of his partners face! Doubtless his partner got powder burns and went deaf for a bit! That doesn't happen "on accident"! That was heads up deliberate murder and I'd have to wonder if it wasn't a hate crime.

a reply to: AMPTAH


and that is a huge part of the problem. the media only seems to report and spend time on it in national news when it is a black person shot, killed or abused by police. pretty much anyone else is almost lucky to get a brief mention in local news. and that is all a part of why mainstream media can be considered fake news. they do not report news anywhere near fair and balanced. the question you need to ask is why you only seem to see the black victims in the news. why the news makes it seem like only black people are at risk. why news spends so much time over days and weeks for a black person being killed or abused by police when almost all the rest are completely ignored. why in the end those they choose to spend all that time hyping over, in the end, ends up being justified.

look at this case. we have an Australian citizen (apparently popular?) killed by a cop. why was it newsworthy? because she is Australian, and possibly her popularity? or because the cop is a Somali, Muslim? in fact some of the first stories i read first seemed to be questioning if he shot her because she was a woman in pajamas (ie not covered up modestly enough), especially since it seems his partner is completely shocked over it happening. (and i'd be shocked too and pissed off if my partner put me in danger by shooting across me when there seemed to be no danger). or was it because he was herald as a hero just a couple of years ago for being the first Somali, Muslim to become a police officer? but why have we never until now heard of the previous 3 complaints against this cop? one being a lawsuit brought against him for false imprisonment, assault, and battery against another woman on May 25, 2017. stemming from him and 2 other officers taking her to a hospital against her will claiming she had a breakdown. yet not just her, but her doctors deny she had a breakdown. surely an incident like that should have made the news. makes you really wonder what the other 2 complaints are about? did they also have something about abuse of women? heck why was he even on the street with the one case we now know about? and yet we are only now hearing about this officer on the news. in fact i have to wonder if the only reason this story is even out on the news is due to all the right wing stories that were popping up about this case. and thus people starting to question the incident. if it hadn't been for that, would this be just another non reported case?

another question you might consider about news coverage for police killings and abuse. why is it that almost every one of the media hyped "racist against blacks" cases of police abuse/killings, has the "victim" been not only a criminal. but a case where in the end it is almost always something that was justifiable? surely if there was such a proportional imbalance of abuse against a particular race, that you would have cases more like this where it is so cut and dried that the police did act way out of line for the situation. or like the case of the teenager (who happened to be white) shot because the cop thought a video game controller was a gun when he answered the door. or the old guy who was shot by the police when they were on his property without his knowledge, and thinking it was a break in was armed. in fact about the best highly publicised case of a cop killing a black person, where it was someone who it seems was not a criminal strictly at fault in the incident, in the end was still justified. because the guy was continuing to reach for something as the cop was screaming at him to stop. a rather dumb move to tell a cop you are armed and then reach for something without specifically communicating to the cop your intention and getting permission to do so. forget doing it as the cop is yelling at you to stop. in fact the really sad thing about that situation is that all this media hype about racist cops murdering blacks, black lives matter with their anti-cop rhetoric and calling for killing cops, and the many attempted cop assassinations made the result of that dumb move almost guaranteed to end badly. so ask yourself why is the media portraying this racial unbalance of cop abuse? is this the result they are after, to turn their propaganda into reality? are people like those in black lives matter and those (especially black people) who believe the media's propaganda playing right into someone's hand and being set up and used as patsies? if they are, you can bet that those being played are the ones most likely to be the looser.

"Protect & Serve" has been replaced in American police with "enforcement".

originally posted by: generik
a reply to: AMPTAH

another question you might consider about news coverage for police killings and abuse. why is it that almost every one of the media hyped "racist against blacks" cases of police abuse/killings, has the "victim" been not only a criminal. but a case where in the end it is almost always something that was justifiable

See. That's part of the problem here.

We don't kill people because they are criminals.

Everyone is entitled to "the same rights", whether they are criminal or not.

Let the courts decide who should be killed, "after due process."

The cop should not be playing the role of judge and jury. His job is to apprehend the accused, even if that accused has a long criminal record. He doesn't know if the accused is trying to lead a good life, having paid his debts to society for all the previous criminal convictions on his record.

The thing is, we make up the laws.

We define who is criminal and who isn't.

Not everybody agrees with everyone else's definition of what is right and what is wrong.

Prejudice and bias play a huge role in how we view other people.

So, leave that judgement to the courts.

Never justify a cop killing, by saying that "Oh, well, the guy he killed had a long criminal record."

That record isn't part of the current event.

a reply to: dreamingawake

Suspicious!

a reply to: dreamingawake

shouldn't they have guidelines for them to not shoot from their vehicle? Sounds like intentional skirting of the law.

Exactly - why shoot from the vehicle. This story is so stunning for Australians....answers are needed fast.

Authorities remain silent nearly three days after Justine Damond shooting
Looks to me like they're stalling for time ... trying to get their stories all straightened out and the narratives deliverable. The whole thing reeks of a cover-up in-progress.

a reply to: Azureblue

Its on the ABC for the 2nd day now. Lets hope more media sites pick it up.

The Australian govt will do and say Sweet fa because they owned by the US government.

My observance as well for the last 30 years. It became even more crystallized when we went to the Middle East based on spurious logic and lack of meaningful evidence as to WMD's.

Change in Departments structure...

www.abc.net.au...

It means one minister is responsible for those agencies as well as the Australian Border Force but the Government says it won't be a US-style department of homeland security.,,,


.....What about oversight of this team?

"Mr Turnbull spent some time talking about oversight and said protection of civil liberties remained, "a fundamental feature of our system".

He also shifted some of the key bodies designed to keep security and intelligence agencies in check from his own department to the Attorney-General's."

Recently it was also discussed that the duties of the Army need to be better defined so they can be embedded with police; as our Constitution doesn't allow for, unless in extreme cases, for the army to be on the streets.

Very worrying trends in our society

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

www.sbs.com.au...

The Turnbull government is looking to change 'call out' powers to allow the military to help local police deal with terror threats.

The changes will mean the Defence Act will be amended to allow states and territories to “call out” the ADF in the event of a terrorist incident.

She had called the police/dispatch reporting a rape in her area. She was talking to the other officer in the car while shot. The officer not only shot at her buy endangered the other officer while doing it. No excuses, as mentioned the silence is to try to stall this off.

“First and foremost I find the authorities unwillingness to reveal any information really inexcusable and unacceptable,” said Bouza. “There is no reason to cripple an investigation that must go forward, but they ought to be a little more sensitive to the family’s leads and the public’s needs. I have never in my life encountered an incident where I couldn’t figure out what happened. This is incomprehensible.”

Startribune

originally posted by: Snarl
Authorities remain silent nearly three days after Justine Damond shooting
Looks to me like they're stalling for time ... trying to get their stories all straightened out and the narratives deliverable. The whole thing reeks of a cover-up in-progress.

No amount of time will fix this, they're #ed now and simply don't realize it yet.

originally posted by: dreamingawake
She had called the police/dispatch reporting a rape in her area. She was talking to the other officer in the car while shot. The officer not only shot at her buy endangered the other officer while doing it. No excuses, as mentioned the silence is to try to stall this off.

We don't have the complete story.

It's hard to think that she was just standing there, calmly giving details to the one officer, while the other officer goes off his rocker and fires his gun at her.

No matter how crazy we think the cops are, they still need a "trigger" to go nuts.

What is it that she did, to make the officer respond with lethal force?

Does anybody know this?

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: dreamingawake
She had called the police/dispatch reporting a rape in her area. She was talking to the other officer in the car while shot. The officer not only shot at her buy endangered the other officer while doing it. No excuses, as mentioned the silence is to try to stall this off.

We don't have the complete story.

It's hard to think that she was just standing there, calmly giving details to the one officer, while the other officer goes off his rocker and fires his gun at her.

No matter how crazy we think the cops are, they still need a "trigger" to go nuts.

What is it that she did, to make the officer respond with lethal force?

Does anybody know this?

She was Australian ffs and in her pyjamas. If anything her personality killed her simply because she was probably too familiar and friendly and they assumed she was a danger to them because of it. Because they aren't trained and are weak little cowards, amongst other things that they are.

Don't bother in this instance trying to explain it as you usually would, it won't work that way in this case.

Send him to prison.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: dreamingawake
She had called the police/dispatch reporting a rape in her area. She was talking to the other officer in the car while shot. The officer not only shot at her buy endangered the other officer while doing it. No excuses, as mentioned the silence is to try to stall this off.

We don't have the complete story.

It's hard to think that she was just standing there, calmly giving details to the one officer, while the other officer goes off his rocker and fires his gun at her.

No matter how crazy we think the cops are, they still need a "trigger" to go nuts.

What is it that she did, to make the officer respond with lethal force?

Does anybody know this?

I wonder if he saw movement behind her and was just startled enough to accidentally trigger a shot. It really could be as simple as cops talking to witness, sudden movement behind witness, cop raises weapon & accidentally fires weapon.

I really don't think this was malicious this time, I think it was an instinctual defensive reaction overriding training & it bit him in the ass horribly.

a reply to: Cofactor

Yes, most Crown Victoria police interceptors have very little if no Kevlar lining in the doors, the only truly bullet proof thing is the windshield and behind the wheel well. Hence why this officer was able to shoot a person through the door.

originally posted by: Snarl
Authorities remain silent nearly three days after Justine Damond shooting
Looks to me like they're stalling for time ... trying to get their stories all straightened out and the narratives deliverable. The whole thing reeks of a cover-up in-progress.

Really it reeks of a cover up in progress, whys that because they haven't released anything yet. Maybe let them have time to find the actual evidence of why the shooting occurred, instead of just doing something 50%. Investigations take time and hopefully they don't release anything until they know what actually happened. Plus the State department investigating this shooting is notorious for being very silent when it comes to taking to the media.

a reply to: AMPTAH

This is a local story and that is basically all the information the local media has been able to gather. She was standing at the drivers side window talking with the driver and the passenger reached across the driver, shooting her through the drivers side window of the squad car. They said the driver was stunned but that's the extent of the information.

The most likely scenario is the woman was talking to the driver. She is probably one of the many individuals who talk with their hands and has her cell phone in her hand while talking. Passenger sees cell phone, thinks it's a gun. Fearing for the lives of himself and his partner, the passenger pulls his firearm and proceeds to shoot the woman.