Update - Officer who fatally shot Justine Damond (Australian) charged with murder, turns himself in

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Jefferson said it very well, and I quoted it in my signature block.

The possibility of a copper shooting me at point blank range for simply approaching their vehicle, is a "liberty" I can quite happily live without.

... Just saying.

Given the size of the US population and factoring in the total amount of law enforcement officers and the subtracting the number of people shot and killed by cops the numbers are negligible.

Only bad news makes the news. You dont here anything about the 70k +/- officers who are on duty at any given time who draw their weapons but are not required to discharge it.

As an example we can find tons of media coverage in the UK and Australia whenever someone is killed by a knife or by a gun. The media in those 2 countries also do not report on the thousands of officers who do their job without the need / use of deadly force.

originally posted by: ooder57
a reply to: Irishhaf

I accept and understand your point.

However, the innocent deaths could have and can be avoided by removing firearms ownership and melting them all down.

Part of the reason so many innocents die (which population total doesnt matter, percentage of pops does), is because cops are afraid everyone is carrying a gun. So they tend to shoot first and ask questions later.

It's not just a population/education issue, it's fundamentally tied into american gun culture.

The reason cops in Australia, and other similar countries, rarely kill innocents, is because they are rarely confronted with a citizen carrying a gun.

You should have stopped with your first comment "This is why I'll never visit America." I can understand that. But with this comment, all I can say is stay where you are and STFU about our gun rights.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ooder57

You guys have drop bears.


I'll stick with the boom sticks.

Criminal drop bears are now carrying AR-15's to protect their eucalyptus crops. If you ever go near the bush at night, not only will they drop onto you with teeth and claws, but now shoot hot lead rain down on you. Good thing we still have the magpies. They keep an eye on everything.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It is VERY slim to none he is found guilty.


The burden of proof is on the state and the state has to prove he didn’t feel threatened in the instant before he fired.


Something that is literally impossible to prove in almost all cases.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It doesn’t matter when they are shooting unarmed people Legally without ANY requirement that they confirm the suspect is armed before firing..

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ooder57

You guys have drop bears.


I'll stick with the boom sticks.

Drop bears only attack tourists, American flesh is their favorite.... Just saying...

originally posted by: abe froman
Can't wait for the storm of people crying racism because the officer is black.

It will probably be from the same people that bash cops on a daily basis.

Well, his supporter seems to think so.

a reply to: badw0lf

Now that the Drop Bears are armed, can they be considered Assault Drop Bears?

it's obviously because the woman was white and we all know that

Here's the question I've had about this case, Will he be trialed for the shooting only, or will the suspected action he was involved in also be uncovered? The guy did shoot across his partner in the car, and it seemed weird that the woman had called the police about a suspected rape taking place in the ally way where she ended up getting shot.

***IMPORTANT SIDE NOTE***

If I recall this case correctly, sorry if I'm getting the case mixed up with another one, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.

I was right.

He will be charged with murder, no doubt.

Let him rot in he77 for what he did.

originally posted by: ooder57
This is why I'll never visit America. Too many good innocent beings die at the hands of incompetent cops.

Man, this # rarely, if ever, happens here is Australia. But, we have higher standards of education and training before becoming a police officer.

I know it won't happen, but I hope he rots in jail for 20 years.

You're more likely to die in a car accident hitting a roo than what happened here.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

The officer wouldn't be getting tried for murder, silly, if shooting people was a protected right.

Of course, everyone has the loose/generic liberty to shoot someone, even in the Great Southern Land, if we want to get technical--but that doesn't mean that the shooting is lawful nor that it's free from the consequences of the law.

But again, don't come to the U.S....no one is trying to force you to. No big concern.

Good job avoiding all of the meat of my comment, though, and just focusing on a quote from Thomas Jefferson.

... Just saying.

a reply to: SR1TX

No, no you weren’t.

originally posted by: SR1TX

I was right.

No, you were not--your version was that they raped her and killed her to cover it up. You also implied that they were in her house before the alleyway and all other kinds of crazy nonsense.

In which world do you reside where that makes you right? Yes, a tiny portion of your theory may be right, but many of us scoffing at your theory also believed that he unnecessarily killed Ms. Damond, sooooo...

He will be charged with murder, no doubt.

Actually, there is plenty of doubt, if one is capable of looking at the totality of the incident. But I do concede that it's possible--not probable, but possible--that he could get charged and convicted under Murder III, which reads:

609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.

(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

I will absolutely concede that it appears that, in acting out of an unsubstantiated fear in that situation and just firing without really assessing the possible threat, that Noor acted with "a depraved mind, without regard for human life," but I don't believe that the prosecutors will want to fight that steep uphill climb in a courtroom with the possibility that technicalities or the state laws that govern LEO use of force would negate those elements of the law.

And, of course, proving a "depraved mind" is pretty difficult to do in an instance like this, in a court of law.

I'm still going with a plea deal being signed and it absolutely will not include murder, but we'll see.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: SR1TX

No, no you weren’t.

So much more succinct than me, yet basically saying the same thing.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Xcathdra

It doesn’t matter when they are shooting unarmed people Legally without ANY requirement that they confirm the suspect is armed before firing..

Ummmm...you know that there's a reason why confirmation is not required, right?

I mean, it's pretty self-explanatory, and has also been discussed in decent detail in numerous past threads for years.

Did you also forget that citizens don't have to confirm the armed status of an attacker before using deadly force if they feel that their life and safety is being threatened?

Here's the quick main reason so that you understand: If you have confirmed that someone is armed (especially with a firearm) before committing to using deadly force, you are likely already dead or seriously wounded.

It's a simple reality that you are ignoring and that many people never trained in (or having apparently never have done minimal research into the topic) simply don't understand.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yea because they consider it more important to protect the officer . Than to protect the citizenry..

It is all right there.. they would rather an officer blow an innocent person away, rather than have an officer killed by a guilty person..


Which I think is insane, because the Officer ALWAYS HAS THE ADVANTAGE..

The officer is usually better armed and always better trained and armored.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Because people view it as more important to protect yourself than to kill an innocent.

Something I find insane.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: SlapMonkey


Which I think is insane, because the Officer ALWAYS HAS THE ADVANTAGE..

Holy sh*t, man, you are woefully ignorant to these situations.

As has had to be said before, stop speaking out of ignorance now before you entrap yourself in a downward spiral of having to justify your BS with more ignorance and BS.

Whether or not you find deem something as sane is irrelevant to the real world. You can obviously have your opinions, but quit being willfully ignorant on the topic at hand--it's very unbecoming of such a 'logical' person.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Call me crazy but I want our police officers to be willing to take a punch to the chin , rather than blow away some teenager acting like a jack @$$..

That said I have no problem with the officer drawing and aiming whenever he feels appr.

That way the instant he confirms the weapon he can shoot while still in the dominate firing position.

I also have no problem with an officer shooting someone holding a gun. Whether they are 100% pointing it at the officer or not.