Australian Justine Damond shot dead by US police in Minneapolis

a reply to: elysiumfire

Oh, my bad... Then you can support your claims from this post - www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: elysiumfire
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!

You cant.

anything else I can help you out with?

Xcathdra:

Then you can support your claims from this post

Yes I can...it's called speculation, evidenced by the question marks. Would you like more tutoring?

The only people that paint all police with the same brush as a corrupt or stupid cop, are people who have already decided that all cops are bad cops, or can "go bad" at the drop of a hat. Personally I think police, like anyone else in any other job, are generally hard working, honest people, but there are always some bad police, just like there are bad bakers, postal workers, barbers.. you name it. Unfortunately when there are bad police, they make the headlines. No one riots over a bad haircut, even if it were racially motivated.

Also blame Joe Public for how carefully police now have to tread when releasing information. Considering released news have caused protests, rioting, even shootings.. I'd think they have to be -very- careful about how they release information now.

a reply to: elysiumfire

so then your answer is, no you cant support the false claims you made.

As I said.. your gonna go down swinging. You made the claims.. you cant support the claims.. I called you out and said you were wrong. You said you werent wrong.

You were wrong.

You up to speed now?

Xcathdra:

so then your answer is, no you cant support the false claims you made.

Have you got a problem with speculation based on what is known?

But the BCA said that Officer Matthew Harrity, who was driving the car, had told investigators that Ms Damond had come towards the car immediately after he heard a loud sound.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Noor's partner has stated (as in the quote) that he heard a loud sound. I believe he said something about this to Noor who immediately treated Justine as a threat.

If you will excuse me, I am off to play 'The Division'. A game that shows the real daily life of the American people.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

The department implemented their body camera program about 8 months ago so not all officers have them yet. These 2 officers did but they weren't activated. The Mayor finds that problematic however we don't know what type they use and under what criteria they are required to be activated. The assistant chief stated the policies in place regarding the cameras will be reviewed and updated if needed.

The current policy has not been released / explained by the department.

Department policy requires body cams turned on during 14 types of calls. One of those types is any call involving criminal activity. The call was for a possible sexual assault which would fall under the criminal activity requirement.

1. Activation Required

a. When safe to do so, officers shall manually activate the BWC
·Traffic stops.
·Suspicious Person stops.
·Suspicious Vehicle stops.
·Any vehicular response requiring emergency driving as defined by MPD P/P 7-402, or emergency response as defined by MPD P/P 7-403.
·Vehicle pursuits.
·Work-related transports not involving a ride-along or another City employee in their official capacity as a City employee.
·Any search, including but not limited to searches of vehicles, persons, and buildings.
·Any contact involving criminal activity.
·Any contact involving physical or verbal confrontations.
·Any contact that is, or becomes adversarial.
·When advising a person of their Miranda rights.
·When ordered to by a supervisor.
·Prior to any use of force. If a BWC is not activated prior to a use of force, it shall be activated as soon as it is safe to do so.
·Any tactical entry or forced entry into a building, unless a supervisor has determined in advance that the video or audio data could result in the disclosure of operational or tactical information that would compromise the effectiveness of future actions or jeopardize officer safety.

b. Activation shall occur as soon as possible, but before any citizen contact.

SOURCE
POLICY

This is the policy local news has been using which they obtained a couple days after this incident.

a reply to: elysiumfire

boy thats pretty thin. This whole thing reeks. I have a feeling the spinsters in the department are in overdrive trying to come up with something..... anything to legitimize this.

to me it looks like a hit but I could be completely wrong. I dont buy that this officer just went nuts and decided to open fire because of a loud noise.

a reply to: FraggleRock

Thanks for the info... I see some issues with the policy, notably when safe to do so.

The fact the media outlet is discussing the policy and they are unsure of when the cameras are suppose to be activated is telling as well.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
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.

Thank you for the explanation Xcathdra.

This makes more sense. The police officer has been debriefed but cannot make a public statement while an Internal Affairs investigation is ongoing. I expect that all the police involved are under a gag order until their internal investigation is complete. It does not look good on the surface; but, we must wait for the official investigation to conclude before reaching conclusions.

I also expect more investigations about this incident to be performed. Like others have said this is an international story and many independent investigation will be conducted. This story will linger for quite some time. The big question is whether the police and the police officer association will support this officer. From the limited evidence presented, it will be hard to justify this shooting. It is especially damning in the public's view that this officer has received three complains already in less than 2 years before this shooting occurred. Those complains will also be presented to the public.

We will all have to wait for more evidence before we can cry for justice.

As far as officers having to wear a body cam...

Well, it was brought on by the actions of the police. Given the multitude of questionable shootings and what appears to be officers willing to cover and protect these officers, what else would be expected to eventually happen.

originally posted by: roadgravel
As far as officers having to wear a body cam...

Well, it was brought on by the actions of the police.

No. The body cams were not because of the actions of police.

The body cams were introduced to protect the police.

It all began when citizens starting filming the cops in action, and releasing their videos on youtube.

The cops complain that the citizens videos were biased, and didn't show the complete story.

So, the cops started with body cams, to produce their own version of events, showing the details they wanted everyone to see.

originally posted by: elysiumfire
Xcathdra:

so then your answer is, no you cant support the false claims you made.

Have you got a problem with speculation based on what is known?

But the BCA said that Officer Matthew Harrity, who was driving the car, had told investigators that Ms Damond had come towards the car immediately after he heard a loud sound.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Noor's partner has stated (as in the quote) that he heard a loud sound. I believe he said something about this to Noor who immediately treated Justine as a threat.

If you will excuse me, I am off to play 'The Division'. A game that shows the real daily life of the American people.

According to reports here in Australia on news radio is in the partners statement the loud bang that startled them happened before the now deceased appeared to them.

originally posted by: agenda51
a reply to: elysiumfire

boy thats pretty thin. This whole thing reeks. I have a feeling the spinsters in the department are in overdrive trying to come up with something..... anything to legitimize this.

to me it looks like a hit but I could be completely wrong. I dont buy that this officer just went nuts and decided to open fire because of a loud noise.

A hit.. on a yoga teacher? By the police? um.. if you say so. And someone else suggested it was because she did spiritual healing, and they are prime targets of apparently the police? Keep in mind she called 911... if they were planning a hit on her, I don't think they were waiting for her to call 911 in an emergency, and then have the hit take place directly in front of a witness.. who was police.

I will say ATS does have if nothing else, a vivid imagination! : )

originally posted by: fleabit
if they were planning a hit on her, I don't think they were waiting for her to call 911 in an emergency, and then have the hit take place directly in front of a witness.. who was police.

I will say ATS does have if nothing else, a vivid imagination! : )

A little while back, there were some incidents where people would call the fire trucks out to some property, then kill all the fire men that arrived. I thought this was extremely weird, since firemen are life saviors, they don't do harm to anybody. Who would concoct such a diabolical scheme.

Maybe the cops thought someone called them out on a fake call, to assassinate some cops. So, they were particularly jumpy when they got there.

See, a Somali Muslim cop shows up in a mostly white Christian/Atheist neighborhood, with Trump banning Muslims from Somalia and all the anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant hostilities being projected in the US, that cop is got to be on edge. The slightest movement by an unknown person could trigger the cop to respond. Like a video game, be quick or be dead.

I haven't had the time to follow more into this today, thanks for the updates and additional info all.

Lots to look through here, but this may be the latest update-apologies if shared already.

Damond had called the police twice reporting the emergency. She called the second time when concerned they had the wrong address.

The city has turned the investigation of Damond’s death over to the state’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.

Source- has a paywall after some views

a reply to: starwarsisreal

wheres white lives matter at ?

a reply to: AMPTAH

If it is all on the police then they have no room to complain. But I suspect they will blame it on the complaints so it's a circle.

a reply to: AMPTAH

so your saying the shooter was somehow the victim LOL. Thats some spin right there.

Honestly I cant come up with a plausible scenario in the way this shooting went down.

Still looks like a hit to me. Was this yoga instructor tied into something?

AMPTAH, You were correct about the history.

RIALTO, Calif. – Cpl. Gary Cunningham is an old-school cop, but he's happy using some new-school technology. Patrolling the alleys and roads in this city of 100,000, Cunningham and his colleagues pioneered the use of body cameras.

The department saw an 88 percent decline in complaints against officers and use-of-force incidents plumetted 60 percent.

america.aljazeera.com...

a reply to: GusMcDangerthing

Coming from someone who clearly dislikes the police, that is your opinion that they are "creating" a story for Officer Noor, but I guarantee you that they are not. There is no shoot first ask questions later policy as you so adamantly say there is.

I would not be surprised if Officer Noor gets indicted for this shooting as it looks more and more by the day that it is a bad shoot. The only thing I can say is no one is perfect and everyone makes mistakes, sadly this mistake cost the life of an innocent person, that this officer now has to live with for the rest of his life.'

The cops in the US should not be avoided, that is an asinine comment, I can't believe the hate in this thread from some of you for no apparent reason. Yes an innocent life was taken and it is a tragic circumstance nothing is going to change that, but you all understand the good police do on a daily basis, at least I hope you do or else society is doomed. Most LEO's still go a 20+ year career without ever having the draw their firearm. Tragedies happen every day, doesn't make this situation better.