Current Events > Australian killed by US police called 911 because she heard someone being raped

(+) Yeah! (+)

@JohnLennon6

This is the only thing I'm going to say to you. The existence of one problem does not preclude the existence of other problems. You seem to be set on excusing Police shooting civilians because "there are worse problems out there", but you don't want to go into it because you'll bore us poor dumb dumb plebs. Yeah, nice nebulous argument there. This is the same logic assholes use when trying to undermine things like feminism, because you apparently can't be mad about your lot in life if other people are worse off than you are.
---

Alucard188 posted...

Conflict posted...

Another day, another johnlennon6 meltdown

Not really a meltdown, per se. More like a condescending solo circle-jerk.

So a normal JL6 topic.
---

so a person with non dark skinned gets killed by the police,and thats when people care..........it makes sense now.
---

RainShower posted...

so a person with non dark skinned gets killed by the police,and thats when people care..........it makes sense now.

I've seen less outrage by far than normal so hush.
---

I retract my previous allegations of the police officer intentially turning hiss body camera off. There might have indeed been a malfunction with the equipment, but it doesn't make it any less convenient that it just happened to be off during time of incident. For all we know this woman could have been on something fierce and was outside yelling to herself. And since there are no witnesses, the only tool we had for getting the truth was turned off.
---

GrAyFoX312k posted...

For all we know this woman could have been on something fierce and was outside yelling to herself. And since there are no witnesses, the only tool we had for getting the truth was turned off.

Squad cars have cameras so they would have at least picked up audio, or did that camera magically go out too?
---

HogRiderreturns posted...

GrAyFoX312k posted...

For all we know this woman could have been on something fierce and was outside yelling to herself. And since there are no witnesses, the only tool we had for getting the truth was turned off.

Squad cars have cameras so they would have at least picked up audio, or did that camera magically go out too?

There's details missing like where she was when she was shot. The incident was reported to have been happening behind a house where i doubt a squad car would fit. And good job only quoting the part where you could attack me without taking into account everything else I've said. I guess bending truths to fit ones arguments isn't only common in law enforcement and criminals, its basic human nature. Also read my previous post before that one, i think we're on the same side.

You do raise a good point though, the squad car is receiver for the officers radio, so there should indeed be audio coming from said radio. Now if that happened to be turned off also, then we have leeway on three officers intentions on doing something shady.
---

US police almost as trigger happy as the military in the DR Congo
---

GrAyFoX312k posted...

There's details missing like where she was when she was shot. The incident was reported to have been happening behind a house where i doubt a squad car would fit.

They have already said she was standing right next to the drivers side door when she was shot.
---

HogRiderreturns posted...

GrAyFoX312k posted...

There's details missing like where she was when she was shot. The incident was reported to have been happening behind a house where i doubt a squad car would fit.

They have already said she was standing right next to the drivers side door when she was shot.

Just saw this news report http://abcnews.go.com/US/deadly-police-shooting-bride-minneapolis/story?id=48678930&cid=clicksource_4380645_2_three_posts_vert_hed

Apparently the officer was in the passenger side of the car and shot through the door when she came out in her PJ's. Not having the body cam on when in the car makes sense. I'm not justifying what happened, just making a point. This dude already had 3 complaints against him with only being on the force for 2 years. Now back on topic.. "There is no dash cam video on the incident." It almost makes it look like an assassination.
---

Body cams should have to be ON every second of an officer's shift. Also sick of them being able to decide when to turn the audio on. Officers should haver zero autonomy over their camera.
---

Darmik posted...

Noor's lawyer also claimed that he suspected an ambush. Which makes no sense at all. If he suspects it with this when wouldn't he suspect it?

He should get a new lawyer especially when it says right there they told dispatch no backup needed.

_Goggalor_ posted...

Body cams should have to be ON every second of an officer's shift. Also sick of them being able to decide when to turn the audio on. Officers should haver zero autonomy over their camera.

So even during lunch time, breaks, and using the bathroom? Not to mention the data overload of trying to store 24/7/365 of an entire department.
---

Kirby posted...

_Goggalor_ posted...

Body cams should have to be ON every second of an officer's shift. Also sick of them being able to decide when to turn the audio on. Officers should haver zero autonomy over their camera.

So even during lunch time, breaks, and using the bathroom? Not to mention the data overload of trying to store 24/7/365 of an entire department.

Bathroom, no. All other times yes because an off-duty officer can still carry a gun and make actions as an Officer.
---

Well I ate my words. Apparently a squad car can fit into a back alley behind houses.

Here's a transcript of what might have happened: From : http://www.startribune.com/attorney-reasonable-to-believe-officer-feared-ambush-when-he-shot-justine-damond/435415343/#1

http://stmedia.stimg.co/1SHOT072017gr_DamondShooting_online_853px.png?enhance&w=853

So they say this officer was Somalian and his name was Muhamod. I'm just wondering if anti-immigration peeps will spin this. Also is it important to note that the woman was australian? I wonder if something this small could potentially incite racial and political friction over time.

So there's only 2 witnesses and one of them is keeping his mouth shut. I don't know who the news interviewed to get these facts, but according to them the squad car was patrolling the alley with the lights turned off. I'm guessing they were patrolling for 4 minutes because thats the time of when they arrived to the time of incident. While patrolling in the dark they hear a spooky noise and the victim pops up. Muhamod then fires on her. I tried looking in the policy and procedure manual for a "fear for your life" justification for deadly force but couldn't find one. http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/police/policy/mpdpolicy_5-300_5-300
---

_Goggalor_ posted...

Kirby posted...

_Goggalor_ posted...

Body cams should have to be ON every second of an officer's shift. Also sick of them being able to decide when to turn the audio on. Officers should haver zero autonomy over their camera.

So even during lunch time, breaks, and using the bathroom? Not to mention the data overload of trying to store 24/7/365 of an entire department.

Bathroom, no. All other times yes because an off-duty officer can still carry a gun and make actions as an Officer.

So how do you control when they go to the bathroom? Call a supervisor every time someone on the shift needs to pee?
---

_Goggalor_ posted...

Kirby posted...

_Goggalor_ posted...

Body cams should have to be ON every second of an officer's shift. Also sick of them being able to decide when to turn the audio on. Officers should haver zero autonomy over their camera.

So even during lunch time, breaks, and using the bathroom? Not to mention the data overload of trying to store 24/7/365 of an entire department.

Bathroom, no. All other times yes because an off-duty officer can still carry a gun and make actions as an Officer.

What are your views on public cameras? With traffic light camera's being deemed unconstitutional, I don't think they'd make a sway in court unless there was another eyewitness account, but it would at least let the public see for themselves what happens.
---

GrAyFoX312k posted...

_Goggalor_ posted...

Kirby posted...

_Goggalor_ posted...

Body cams should have to be ON every second of an officer's shift. Also sick of them being able to decide when to turn the audio on. Officers should haver zero autonomy over their camera.

So even during lunch time, breaks, and using the bathroom? Not to mention the data overload of trying to store 24/7/365 of an entire department.

Bathroom, no. All other times yes because an off-duty officer can still carry a gun and make actions as an Officer.

What are your views on public cameras? With traffic light camera's being deemed unconstitutional, I don't think they'd make a sway in court unless there was another eyewitness account, but it would at least let the public see for themselves what happens.

I don't mind them. If you aren't doing anything wrong you should have nothing to worry about.
---

Kirby posted...

_Goggalor_ posted...

Kirby posted...

_Goggalor_ posted...

Body cams should have to be ON every second of an officer's shift. Also sick of them being able to decide when to turn the audio on. Officers should haver zero autonomy over their camera.

So even during lunch time, breaks, and using the bathroom? Not to mention the data overload of trying to store 24/7/365 of an entire department.

Bathroom, no. All other times yes because an off-duty officer can still carry a gun and make actions as an Officer.

So how do you control when they go to the bathroom? Call a supervisor every time someone on the shift needs to pee?

I see what you're trying to do in pointing out the flaw in his plan, but it's not unreasonable to think that they shouldn't have them on more, especially when things like this happen, or have the power to turn them off. You know what else you can do to prevent a body camera from seeing? You can cover it. Easy. If a corrupt cop wants to do something shady he'll/she'll find a way. So I ask you this Kirby, do you think law enforcement should be more heavily monitored than they are now? Especially ones with complaints and bad track records?
---

I think if you have a history of complaints and a bad track record, then you should be monitored more heavily. The overwhelming majority of police officers aren't getting into shootings, and most officers will never use their guns in their entire career. I think if a cop doesn't have excessive problems, the camera should just be turned on when he gets to a call.

You also run into the problem of being able to not only record massive amounts of video, but then people have to go through and redact information from EACH video if the video is requested. The amount of manpower that takes is ridiculous.
---

Kirby posted...

I think if you have a history of complaints and a bad track record, then you should be monitored more heavily. The overwhelming majority of police officers aren't getting into shootings, and most officers will never use their guns in their entire career. I think if a cop doesn't have excessive problems, the camera should just be turned on when he gets to a call.

You also run into the problem of being able to not only record massive amounts of video, but then people have to go through and redact information from EACH video if the video is requested. The amount of manpower that takes is ridiculous.

When you say redact information do you mean remove relevant audio/video from the case to fit a prosecutor's needs, or remove audio/video that's not relevant to the case at all?

So if man power and digital space becomes an issue, would you think it would be advantageous to only turn on the body camera when they get the call and only turn it off after the issue is resolved? And do you feel that problem officers should have them on even when not being issued a call?
---

This is just like the two rookie cops who killed my friend in Brooklyn, they are for sure to be fired but lets see if they escape any legal penalty like officer Lian did.

EDIT: exception is that the cops who shot Akai didn't try to help him, they just called their lawyer and union rep standing over his dying body.
---

This appears to be a tragic mistake. Cop car in a dark alleyway. 911 caller walks up to cop's partner with a cell phone in hand, officer mistakes caller for an armed "rapist" and shoots to protect his partner. Not a cold-blooded murder, nor related to Islam as some stupid right-wingers are claiming.
---

Ammonitida posted...

This appears to be a tragic mistake. Cop car in a dark alleyway. 911 caller walks up to cop's partner with a cell phone in hand, officer mistakes caller for an armed "rapist" and shoots to protect his partner. Not a cold-blooded murder, nor related to Islam as some stupid right-wingers are claiming.

Tragic mistake my ass, this is an example of an officer being under-trained and probably under-qualified.

It's shit-tier policing.
---

Solid Sonic posted...

Ammonitida posted...

This appears to be a tragic mistake. Cop car in a dark alleyway. 911 caller walks up to cop's partner with a cell phone in hand, officer mistakes caller for an armed "rapist" and shoots to protect his partner. Not a cold-blooded murder, nor related to Islam as some stupid right-wingers are claiming.

Tragic mistake my ass, this is an example of an officer being under-trained and probably under-qualified.

It's shit-tier policing.

No amount of training is going to prevent bad shoots from happening. There are literally millions of cop/civilian interactions each year. Fortunately, only a tiny, TINY percentage of these interactions end in a bad shoot. Most officers never even shoot their guns throughout their entire careers. But cops are human and humans are not infallible.

And most of these bad shoots are tragic mistakes made in an attempt to defend themselves or someone else, like in this case, unless you think this officer wanted to "murder" a blond white woman and become national news.
---

Ammonitida posted...

And most of these bad shoots are tragic mistakes made in an attempt to defend themselves or someone else, like in this case

No, this was a piss poor trained cop that shouldn't have even had a badge.
---

1. The shooting happened from INSIDE the squad car; the accused fired his weapon from the passenger seat ACROSS THE FACE of his partner to the victim standing outside the car, who was reportedly just conversing with the officer in the driver's seat at the time, presenting no physical threat

2. This would mean that whatever he did, he had his finger on the trigger of the weapon in a non-volatile situation, which is reckless

3. Who the hell fires just because they heard something without actually wanting to see what caused it?

It's bad policing.
---

Solid Sonic posted...

1. The shooting happened from INSIDE the squad car; the accused fired his weapon from the passenger seat ACROSS THE FACE of his partner to the victim standing outside the car, who was reportedly just conversing with the officer in the driver's seat at the time, presenting no physical threat

2. This would mean that whatever he did, he had his finger on the trigger of the weapon in a non-volatile situation, which is reckless

3. Who the hell fires just because they heard something without actually wanting to see what caused it?

It's bad policing.

Your first point has not been 100% confirmed. Other sources stated that she was shot as she approached the cruiser with a cell phone in hand.
---

_Goggalor_ posted...

Kirby posted...

_Goggalor_ posted...

Body cams should have to be ON every second of an officer's shift. Also sick of them being able to decide when to turn the audio on. Officers should haver zero autonomy over their camera.

So even during lunch time, breaks, and using the bathroom? Not to mention the data overload of trying to store 24/7/365 of an entire department.

Bathroom, no. All other times yes because an off-duty officer can still carry a gun and make actions as an Officer.

Body cams will never help solve the problem of officers just deciding to kill people. Ya know why? Because in court the officers feelings of a particular circumstance will always be relevant.

For example a large unarmed man starts flaring his nostrils at a cop which may or may not even be noticeable on camera and is close enough to grab the cop. The cop shots him 5 times in quick succession.

The video of the body cam will show absolutely no reason for the cop to kill this man. But when the cop testifies in court, I've been professionally trained on when to know signs of aggression, and the way that this man flared his nostrils at me, and the look he had in his eyes told me all I needed to know, he was going to attack me right then and I made a split second decision to save my own life.

This will always work, and it will become a reason why this will never matter.

Also it's a conflict of interest to the public in the officers favor because they will have access to the videos and can easily craft a story that sounds good to explain the video, no matter what the circumstance is.

If cops are required to wear body cameras, there should be an outside of the police force agency that controls, stores, and monitors the video to eliminate any sort of story crafting or conflict of interest within the police department that wants to be able to protect its own officers.
---

GrAyFoX312k posted...

So they say this officer was Somalian and his name was Muhamod. I'm just wondering if anti-immigration peeps will spin this. Also is it important to note that the woman was australian? I wonder if something this small could potentially incite racial and political friction over time.

Yes people have made it into the a faith and immigration thing.
---

Kelystic posted...

so the best way to calm her down is to shoot her?

Can't panic if you're dead.

Apparently it was a firework that startled the cop, according to the partner.
---

What the hell
---

GrAyFoX312k posted...

Kirby posted...

I think if you have a history of complaints and a bad track record, then you should be monitored more heavily. The overwhelming majority of police officers aren't getting into shootings, and most officers will never use their guns in their entire career. I think if a cop doesn't have excessive problems, the camera should just be turned on when he gets to a call.

You also run into the problem of being able to not only record massive amounts of video, but then people have to go through and redact information from EACH video if the video is requested. The amount of manpower that takes is ridiculous.

When you say redact information do you mean remove relevant audio/video from the case to fit a prosecutor's needs, or remove audio/video that's not relevant to the case at all?

So if man power and digital space becomes an issue, would you think it would be advantageous to only turn on the body camera when they get the call and only turn it off after the issue is resolved? And do you feel that problem officers should have them on even when not being issued a call?

When people request copies of videos, someone has to sit through the entire video and cut out personal information (home addresses, date of births etc). It takes a lot of work.

The problem here is that most officers (including me) turn the body cam/mic on when you put your car in park and exit the vehicle. Having a video of a cop driving to the call is usually pointless and adds no value to the case, and is wasted extra space. The problem is that they probably do the same, but they just got on scene and hadn't even left the car yet when the lady started approaching them.

Altogether I don't think video will help much in this case, just from the limited info we know it seems like a bad shoot but I'm interested to see the officer's version in his report.
---

Darmik posted...

JohnLennon6 posted...

I won't delve too deep into it, because I would get too philosophical and I don't want to risk boring anybody, but you can just see how much society has changed since the 20th century to know that something terrible is happening.

Yeah imagine how much easier it was for police to abuse their authority back in the day. So much better.

Strawman.

SSJ-JohnLennon posted...

Darmik posted...

JohnLennon6 posted...

I won't delve too deep into it, because I would get too philosophical and I don't want to risk boring anybody, but you can just see how much society has changed since the 20th century to know that something terrible is happening.

Yeah imagine how much easier it was for police to abuse their authority back in the day. So much better.

Strawman.

It was sarcasm mocking your ignorance not a strawman argument. Get it right.
---

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/21/what-happens-when-the-races-are-reversed-in-a-police-shooting/

That probably explains why the emerging narrative from the press and Minneapolis's leaders is concern that the shooting may prompt a backlash against the Somali community in the city. It's quite odd to see since there is never a concern from the media that the white community may receive grief any time a Caucasian officer shoots someone over contended circumstances.

"I stand with our Somali community. We can't compound the tragedy of Justine Damond's death by turning to racism"

Last year, white cops were targeted for execution in Dallas and white motorists were targeted for assaults and shootings in Milwaukee, but never any such concern was expressed by the WashPost for white people.
---

Ammonitida posted...

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/21/what-happens-when-the-races-are-reversed-in-a-police-shooting/

That probably explains why the emerging narrative from the press and Minneapolis's leaders is concern that the shooting may prompt a backlash against the Somali community in the city. It's quite odd to see since there is never a concern from the media that the white community may receive grief any time a Caucasian officer shoots someone over contended circumstances.

"I stand with our Somali community. We can't compound the tragedy of Justine Damond's death by turning to racism"

Last year, white cops were targeted for execution in Dallas and white motorists were targeted for assaults and shootings in Milwaukee, but never any such concern was expressed by the WashPost for white people.

@Cjsdowg

For a normal person, refusing to interview about the incident would be used against them as admission of guilt but cops and people in power are saying it's "exercising his right". That's just how the system works.
---

Wall of blue silence.

Remember when police were considered public servants?
---

SSJ-JohnLennon posted...

Ammonitida posted...

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/21/what-happens-when-the-races-are-reversed-in-a-police-shooting/

That probably explains why the emerging narrative from the press and Minneapolis's leaders is concern that the shooting may prompt a backlash against the Somali community in the city. It's quite odd to see since there is never a concern from the media that the white community may receive grief any time a Caucasian officer shoots someone over contended circumstances.

"I stand with our Somali community. We can't compound the tragedy of Justine Damond's death by turning to racism"

Last year, white cops were targeted for execution in Dallas and white motorists were targeted for assaults and shootings in Milwaukee, but never any such concern was expressed by the WashPost for white people.

@Cjsdowg

Why did you tag me here ?
---

twitterfriends posted...

For a normal person, refusing to interview about the incident would be used against them as admission of guilt but cops and people in power are saying it's "exercising his right". That's just how the system works.

lol no. Cite me one case where the defendant refused to talk about the case, and was convicted based on that alone making him guilty.
---

cjsdowg posted...

SSJ-JohnLennon posted...

Ammonitida posted...

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/21/what-happens-when-the-races-are-reversed-in-a-police-shooting/

That probably explains why the emerging narrative from the press and Minneapolis's leaders is concern that the shooting may prompt a backlash against the Somali community in the city. It's quite odd to see since there is never a concern from the media that the white community may receive grief any time a Caucasian officer shoots someone over contended circumstances.

"I stand with our Somali community. We can't compound the tragedy of Justine Damond's death by turning to racism"

Last year, white cops were targeted for execution in Dallas and white motorists were targeted for assaults and shootings in Milwaukee, but never any such concern was expressed by the WashPost for white people.

@Cjsdowg

Why did you tag me here ?

Because you tend to deny stuff like that.

SSJ-JohnLennon posted...

Because you tend to deny stuff like that.

When did I say someone never targeted police for anything
---

You imply it all the time, kid.

Kirby posted...

twitterfriends posted...

For a normal person, refusing to interview about the incident would be used against them as admission of guilt but cops and people in power are saying it's "exercising his right". That's just how the system works.

lol no. Cite me one case where the defendant refused to talk about the case, and was convicted based on that alone making him guilty.

He can't.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Kirby posted...

twitterfriends posted...

For a normal person, refusing to interview about the incident would be used against them as admission of guilt but cops and people in power are saying it's "exercising his right". That's just how the system works.

lol no. Cite me one case where the defendant refused to talk about the case, and was convicted based on that alone making him guilty.

He can't.

@twitterfriends
---

JohnLennon6 posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

Kirby posted...

twitterfriends posted...

For a normal person, refusing to interview about the incident would be used against them as admission of guilt but cops and people in power are saying it's "exercising his right". That's just how the system works.

lol no. Cite me one case where the defendant refused to talk about the case, and was convicted based on that alone making him guilty.

He can't.

@twitterfriends

---

Kirby posted...

_Goggalor_ posted...

Kirby posted...

_Goggalor_ posted...

Body cams should have to be ON every second of an officer's shift. Also sick of them being able to decide when to turn the audio on. Officers should haver zero autonomy over their camera.

So even during lunch time, breaks, and using the bathroom? Not to mention the data overload of trying to store 24/7/365 of an entire department.

Bathroom, no. All other times yes because an off-duty officer can still carry a gun and make actions as an Officer.

So how do you control when they go to the bathroom? Call a supervisor every time someone on the shift needs to pee?

Record walking up to the bathroom and stop as the enter this way they dont invade anyone privacy thats potentially in there and they have proof it was turned off for bathroom purposes
---