MN - Justine Damond, 40, fatally shot by Minneapolis LE, 15 July 2017 #1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Have you approached a police car in the middle of the night in an alley?



Not in an alley, but def in the dark. By all media reports, this alley was well-lit, as are many alleys in the Twin Cities.

I have a conservative viewpoint. I support the police. I do not think they are inherently evil.

This case sets my hinky meter going.

Others have mentioned a language barrier~ I don't think so. He graduated from a private college (Augsburg) with a degree in business and economics. Hard to believe he accomplished that with a poor understanding of english.
 
Whatever he was thinking, how is it going to justify shooting an unarmed woman? Are cops allowed to shoot people for no real reason, but because of what they are thinking?

Sadly, the answer is "yes", cops can shoot because of what they are thinking. It's been proven in court over and over, that if the cop says he or she believed he or she was in danger, then they can shoot to kill, regardless of whether or not, their thinking was correct.

It is so entrenched into law, that there really is no reason to charge cops with killing unarmed, innocent people. The whole pretense of a trial just gives the families a false hope that there will be justice.
 
Wow.....news articles about this made international headlines.....I have family in LE and am quick to defend their actions when an armed (even with a knife) person makes any kind of threat - to the officers or others. But this.....is not right. When I first read it I thought, "it must have been an accident - his gun went off somehow - he would never shoot an unarmed person through a door"....and then another news report said, "multiple times". So my accident theory went out the window. It shouldn't matter who the victim was, but the fact that she was Australian and vocally anti-violence and anti-gun makes this feel less real. A meditation and yoga teacher......she looks about as non-threatening as one can.....This doesn't happen. This shouldn't have happened. I can't imagine a scenario where the officer is in the right. RIP Justine.....I hope your death creates awareness for better training and I hope that no one involved is above the law.
 
Not in an alley, but def in the dark. By all media reports, this alley was well-lit, as are many alleys in the Twin Cities.

I have a conservative viewpoint. I support the police. I do not think they are inherently evil.

This case sets my hinky meter going.

Others have mentioned a language barrier~ I don't think so. He graduated from a private college (Augsburg) with a degree in business and economics. Hard to believe he accomplished that with a poor understanding of english.

I think the Michael Brown shooting changed police procedures in many places. Brown reached through the officer's window and tried to grab his weapon. The officer was vilified on social media.
 
Wow.....news articles about this made international headlines.....I have family in LE and am quick to defend their actions when an armed (even with a knife) person makes any kind of threat - to the officers or others. But this.....is not right. When I first read it I thought, "it must have been an accident - his gun went off somehow - he would never shoot an unarmed person through a door"....and then another news report said, "multiple times". So my accident theory went out the window. It shouldn't matter who the victim was, but the fact that she was Australian and vocally anti-violence and anti-gun makes this feel less real. A meditation and yoga teacher......she looks about as non-threatening as one can.....This doesn't happen. This shouldn't have happened. I can't imagine a scenario where the officer is in the right. RIP Justine.....I hope your death creates awareness for better training and I hope that no one involved is above the law.

The officers had no way to know whether she was "non-threatening" or not. She may have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time. We don't know.
 
I think the Michael Brown shooting changed police procedures in many places. Brown reached through the officer's window and tried to grab his weapon. The officer was vilified on social media.

Do you really think that this woman tried to get the officers gun?
 
If she refused his request and continued to approach, it will be ruled justified, imo.

Multiple reports that she was speaking with the other officer and that he was stunned by the shooting. Doesn't sound like she was threatening in any way. She was not "approaching" the vehicle. He also shot her multiple times. No one should be above the law.....
 
As in all cases I will reserve my judgment until more facts come out. But just speaking in general terms The police have very dangerous jobs that most of us would never want to do. They put their lives on the line every day and I’m thankful for what they do for all of us. Now with that said, because this is what they signed up to do they are not allowed to go into a situation with a shoot first and ask questions later mentality just because they feel there might be danger about to happen. If that were the case they would be allowed to go to a robbery and just start shooting everyone there. That would be the safest thing for them to ensure they go home, but not for the public and that is who they are hired to protect. They are expected to accept a certain amount of risk before shooting at someone before they even present any danger. This would be like a fireman refusing to enter a building because it might be dangerous. IT WILL BE DANGEROUS.
 
If she refused his request and continued to approach, it will be ruled justified, imo.

There is nothing to support this speculation.

Did you read where his partner was shocked by his actions?

If I had called the police at 11:30 PM, I would have been watching for them, and been prepared to meet them to clarify the situation.
 
I am so sick of this stuff happening! So now somebody cannot even approach a police vehicle without the fear of being shot? If I call the police on a disturbance, chances are I'm going to try to go speak with the officer when he/she arrives. This is just disgusting IMO.
 
Sadly, the answer is "yes", cops can shoot because of what they are thinking. It's been proven in court over and over, that if the cop says he or she believed he or she was in danger, then they can shoot to kill, regardless of whether or not, their thinking was correct.

It is so entrenched into law, that there really is no reason to charge cops with killing unarmed, innocent people. The whole pretense of a trial just gives the families a false hope that there will be justice.

There have been cases of unjustified shootings and convictions of cops. The use of excessive force is very much illegal and they have to at least conduct an investigation to determine the actual facts.

[video=cnn;us/2016/10/31/michael-slager-walter-scott-case-wrap-jpm-orig.cnn]http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/02/us/michael-slager-federal-plea/index.html[/video]
 
From pics in the Australian media, she was in her driveway, in front of a garage.
 
Whatever he was thinking, how is it going to justify shooting an unarmed woman? Are cops allowed to shoot people for no real reason, but because of what they are thinking?

Sadly in this day and age it sure seems so. As long as they say they were in fear of their lives. [emoji20]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
76
Guests online
2,618
Total visitors
2,694

Forum statistics

Threads
590,013
Messages
17,928,991
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top