Minnesota officer shoots dead another innocent black victim

MeMen2_MoRi_

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Compare apples too apples and this is what you get.

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1382952649406959618?s=19

1. Hardly a big difference in the charges there? 12 years vs 10 years? Hardly like she's being let go ffs. The circumstances are different.

2. There is no way to suggest that this is because she is white. None whatsoever. You can find cases where black officers get off and white do not. There's inconsistencies throughout prosecutions and sentencing all the time. Can't just cherry pick two examples.

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

Who said she shouldn't be charged?

Absolutely nobody that I can see - it's a strawman.

GreeBo

Student_111 wrote: »

1. Hardly a big difference in the charges there? 12 years vs 10 years? Hardly like she's being let go ffs. The circumstances are different.

2 year difference in the sentence, but a huge difference in the charges.

2nd degree manslaughter has a max of 10 years, 3rd degree murder has a max of 25 years. They are not comparable or interchangeable.

biko

In the black officer shooting, it's not the same scenario.

A Hennepin County jury found 33-year-old Noor guilty of third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in the death of Justine Ruszczyk Damond, who had called the police to report a possible sexual assault in her neighborhood in the summer of 2017.

Noor shot and killed her, and at trial, he claimed self-defense.

The officer testified that he thought Justine Damond was “a threat” when she approached his police vehicle in her pink pajamas with the words "Koala Australia" on.
Noor, 32, told jurors he fired his gun because he heard a loud bang on the driver’s door and thought his partner Matthew Harrity’s life was in danger.
When he realized she was not armed, he became frozen with grief, he testified

The July 2017 killing led to a number of shuffles within the police department. Following Damond’s death, then-Minneapolis mayor Betsy Hodges requested the city’s police chief step down, leading to the appointment of Medaria Arradondo, the city’s first African American police chief. Noor was fired shortly after being charged in March 2018.

GreeBo

Student_111 wrote: »

Absolutely nobody that I can see - it's a strawman.

nullzero wrote: »

Who said she shouldn't be charged?

Seems like the two below posters dont want to see the officer charged with anything?

Danzy wrote: »

you couldn't blame an officer if they reached deliberately for the gun in such a scenario.

Being Arrested for murder doesn't warrant a tasering, Being a violent or threatening ahole while interacting with police does and more, Jo matter the reason they are talking to one.

There is an element of having to grow up and take responsibility as well. This was an adult with a child.

Being a violent fool is a dangerous hobby.

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Apparently the officer is being charged with manslaughter. Based on the video I think that's crazy.

Fandymo

GreeBo wrote: »

Seems like the two below posters dont want to see the officer charged with anything?

She'll be charged, but she'll walk. 100%.

biko

In my book she is not guilty of murder (there was no intent to kill Duante) but she is guilty of causing his life to end, that to me is manslaughter.

tjhook

Maybe I'm getting soft in my old age - Topics like this are very polarising in the US and it seems to be becoming like that here now too.

I abhor violence, and don't believe the victim here deserved to die. I don't like the death penalty even when it has a judicial process behind it. The victim here didn't deserve to be killed. It's very clear in my mind.

But I also have pity for the police officer. I don't believe she intended to shoot the victim. It could have been an accident, or negligence, or both, or something else entirely. Time will tell - for all I know, she could have been a secretive member of the KKK, but I don't assume that. If something like that comes out in court proceedings, I'll change my position.

But she's killed somebody without intending to, and has to live with that. Her career is over. Plus either she'll receive a heavy sentence, or else she'll be seen as responsible for the inevitable riots that ensue.

There are no winners in this. Except maybe those who thrive in conflict and division.

Mr. teddywinkles

tjhook wrote: »

Maybe I'm getting soft in my old age - Topics like this are very polarising in the US and it seems to be becoming like that here now too.

I abhor violence, and don't believe the victim here deserved to die. I don't like the death penalty even when it has a judicial process behind it. The victim here didn't deserve to be killed. It's very clear in my mind.

But I also have pity for the police officer. I don't believe she intended to shoot the victim. It could have been an accident, or negligence, or both, or something else entirely. Time will tell - for all I know, she could have been a secretive member of the KKK, but I don't assume that. If something like that comes out in court proceedings, I'll change my position.

But she's killed somebody without intending to, and has to live with that. Her career is over. Plus either she'll receive a heavy sentence, or else she'll be seen as responsible for the inevitable riots that ensue.

There are no winners in this. Except maybe those who thrive in conflict and division.

I don't understand how people here think its intentional. She thought to herself the morning before. You know what I feel like doing. I'm going to fook up my career and life today. I could do with a bit of time in prison as an ex cop too. I'll go out and shoot someone today for ****s n giggles.

Fandymo

tjhook wrote: »

Maybe I'm getting soft in my old age - Topics like this are very polarising in the US and it seems to be becoming like that here now too.

I abhor violence, and don't believe the victim here deserved to die. I don't like the death penalty even when it has a judicial process behind it. The victim here didn't deserve to be killed. It's very clear in my mind.

But I also have pity for the police officer. I don't believe she intended to shoot the victim. It could have been an accident, or negligence, or both, or something else entirely. Time will tell - for all I know, she could have been a secretive member of the KKK, but I don't assume that. If something like that comes out in court proceedings, I'll change my position.

But she's killed somebody without intending to, and has to live with that. Her career is over. Plus either she'll receive a heavy sentence, or else she'll be seen as responsible for the inevitable riots that ensue.

There are no winners in this. Except maybe those who thrive in conflict and division.

The BLM leader who's buying up multi-million houses in white neighbour hoods is winning.

tayto lover

GreeBo wrote: »

If he'd have pulled into arbys for a burger hev would also be alive (well probably 50:50 based on my arbys experience) so I don't think your point had as much weight as you think it does.

He'd also be alive if that cop had actually used her training... None of the other cops on scene felt the need to shoot or taze him, why was that I wonder?
Surely if it was a split second, life or death situation they all would have reacted the same way?

Your opinion. Mine differs.
He’d also be still alive if he was a decent honest citizen.
As for the split second decision, they are not robots. They all feel and think differently. Maybe if the woman he robbed had resisted then she might have been shot too.
Your arguments are really simple to rebuke.
It was an accident. Plain and simple.

GreeBo

tayto lover wrote: »

Your opinion. Mine differs.
He’d also be still alive if he was a decent honest citizen.
As for the split second decision, they are not robots. They all feel and think differently. Maybe if the woman he robbed had resisted then she might have been shot too.
Your arguments are really simple to rebuke.
It was an accident. Plain and simple.

The difference between them and everyone else is that they are trained to deal with these situations, precisely because they are tense, they wield lethal force and are dealing with normal untrained citizens.

I have no idea what your point about the women resisting arrest is. If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. You seem to be confusing rebuke with refute? Refute means to disagree.

An accident would be the gun going off in her holster, this was negligence. It's not unforeseen what happens when you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger.

I note you ignored my question about why none of the other officers had even drawn a weapon?

GreeBo

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

I don't understand how people here think its intentional. She thought to herself the morning before. You know what I feel like doing. I'm going to fook up my career and life today. I could do with a bit of time in prison as an ex cop too. I'll go out and shoot someone today for ****s n giggles.

I guess you can ask the same question about the victim. Do people really think that he woke up and said I'm going to get myself shot today by resisting arrest.

tayto lover

GreeBo wrote: »

The difference between them and everyone else is that they are trained to deal with these situations, precisely because they are tense, they wield lethal force and are dealing with normal untrained citizens.

I have no idea what your point about the women resisting arrest is. If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. You seem to be confusing rebuke with refute? Refute means to disagree.

An accident would be the gun going off in her holster, this was negligence. It's not unforeseen what happens when you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger.

I note you ignored my question about why none of the other officers had even drawn a weapon?

I didn’t ignore your question at all.
People are just that people and are not robots. Police are people too. Maybe the others didn’t see what she saw. Maybe they should have reacted like she did. None of us know because none of us were there. BUT we all saw the video and we all know that she meant to taser him but accidentally pulled out the wrong weapon. He was shot by accident.
By the way rebuke means -
rebuke
/rɪˈbjuːk/
verb
express sharp disapproval or criticism of (someone) because of their behaviour or actions.
That’s exactly what I did to you and your points.

Now for a nice long walk in the forest. Good day.

GreeBo

tayto lover wrote: »

I didn’t ignore your question at all.
People are just that people and are not robots. Police are people too. Maybe the others didn’t see what she saw. Maybe they should have reacted like she did. None of us know because none of us were there. BUT we all saw the video and we all know that she meant to taser him but accidentally pulled out the wrong weapon. He was shot by accident.

No, she used a gun instead of a taser, the shot itself was not an accident, she deliberately pulled a firearm and squeezed the trigger and quite frankly in a slightly hysterical way.


The victim wasnt a robot either, thats why police are trained to deal with these scenarios without using lethal force. There is no evidence that he was a threat to anyone and so lethal force was not required.

tayto lover wrote: »

By the way rebuke means -
rebuke
/rɪˈbjuːk/
verb
express sharp disapproval or criticism of (someone) because of their behaviour or actions.
That’s exactly what I did to you and your points.

Now for a nice long walk in the forest. Good day.

If you truly meant "rebuke" then "easy to rebuke" makes zero sense....

nullzero

GreeBo wrote: »

No, she used a gun instead of a taser, the shot itself was not an accident, she deliberately pulled a firearm and squeezed the trigger and quite frankly in a slightly hysterical way.


The victim wasnt a robot either, thats why police are trained to deal with these scenarios without using lethal force. There is no evidence that he was a threat to anyone and so lethal force was not required.



If you truly meant "rebuke" then "easy to rebuke" makes zero sense....

The victim was about to drive away at speed from the police. Anything could have ensued from that situation. How would you have dealt with the situation?

GreeBo

nullzero wrote: »

The victim was about to drive away at speed from the police. Anything could have ensued from that situation. How would you have dealt with the situation?

So you're a fortune teller now Father?
How do you know he was going to drive away at speed?
Indeed anything could have happened, he could have calmed down and pulled over.

As it turns out shooting him lead to him crashing into another car and endangering others.

nullzero

GreeBo wrote: »

So you're a fortune teller now Father?
How do you know he was going to drive away at speed?
Indeed anything could have happened, he could have calmed down and pulled over.

As it turns out shooting him lead to him crashing into another car and endangering others.

Call me clairvoyant if you like, but the likelihood of somebody who just resisted being handcuffed and scuffled with the police to rush back into their vehicle, driving away in a calm and safety conscious manner is not very high.

I think it isn't much of a leap to state that 99 times out of 100 that situation results in irrational, dangerous driving that has to be dealt with by pursuing police vehicles. A situation which has the potential to be extremely dangerous for more than those immediately involved in it.

His vehicle collided with another albeit at low speed. Had he been tased instead of shot dead accidently we never would have heard about it. The issue here is the mistake the officer in question made. Something that she is being punished for. There are no winners here.

GreeBo

nullzero wrote: »

Call me clairvoyant if you like, but the likelihood of somebody who just resisted being handcuffed and scuffled with the police to rush back into their vehicle, driving away in a calm and safety conscious manner is not very high.


I think it isn't much of a leap to state that 99 times out of 100 that situation results in irrational, dangerous driving that has to be dealt with by pursuing police vehicles. A situation which has the potential to be extremely dangerous for more than those immediately involved in it.

But there are police following cars all the time in the US that dont end up with people being shot.
I'm not saying it would never happen, but I think its a leap to suggest that an accident involving other parties is a foregone conclusion.

nullzero wrote: »

His vehicle collided with another albeit at low speed. Had he been tased instead of shot dead accidently we never would have heard about it. The issue here is the mistake the officer in question made. Something that she is being punished for. There are no winners here.

It was probably at low speed due to him not being able to press the accelerator due to him being dead.
I agree we wouldnt have heard about it, but that doesnt make it the correct response imo.

I really dont see why an unarmed man cant be controlled by 3 officers with non lethal force, such as pepper spray.

nullzero

GreeBo wrote: »

But there are police following cars all the time in the US that dont end up with people being shot.
I'm not saying it would never happen, but I think its a leap to suggest that an accident involving other parties is a foregone conclusion.



It was probably at low speed due to him not being able to press the accelerator due to him being dead.
I agree we wouldnt have heard about it, but that doesnt make it the correct response imo.

I really dont see why an unarmed man cant be controlled by 3 officers with non lethal force, such as pepper spray.

We're never going to agree.

The car moved slowly because a weapon was discharged, sadly the wrong weapon.

There was a definite possibility that he would have driven dangerously, his behaviour was already reckless, why wod it cha ge once behind the wheel of a car.

We've taken this as far as we can, I can see how this was a tragedy and lessons should be learned from it, you seem incapable of understanding why events unfolded the way they did, no point in going any further, you have your opinion, I have mine, never the twain shall meet.

tayto lover

GreeBo wrote: »

No, she used a gun instead of a taser, the shot itself was not an accident, she deliberately pulled a firearm and squeezed the trigger and quite frankly in a slightly hysterical way.


The victim wasnt a robot either, thats why police are trained to deal with these scenarios without using lethal force. There is no evidence that he was a threat to anyone and so lethal force was not required.



If you truly meant "rebuke" then "easy to rebuke" makes zero sense....

1. She meant to pull a taser. She mistakenly pulled a firearm. Accident for sure.

2. The victim was a threat. He had previously robbed a woman at gunpoint. It was therefore very likely and probably suspected by the police officers that he had a gun in the car. He was already proven to be a dangerous thug.

3. Easy to rebuke makes perfect sense.

Foxtrol

tayto lover wrote: »

1. She meant to pull a taser. She mistakenly pulled a firearm. Accident for sure.

2. The victim was a threat. He had previously robbed a woman at gunpoint. It was therefore very likely and probably suspected by the police officers that he had a gun in the car. He was already proven to be a dangerous thug.

3. Easy to rebuke makes perfect sense.

If you want to judge the victim for issues in his past and imply a threat, we can similarly judge the cop for her involvement in a police cover up and imply that she is more than capable of covering her tracks.

fullstop

Nozebleed wrote: »

i her ya..but what normal person tries to abscond from 3 cops when they are clearly identifiable. this guy got himelf killed. police officer drew the wrong firearm..im sure that can happen in the heat of the moment...whcih was caused by the driver himself. and now he's dead.

Probably already been covered, can’t be arsed reading 30 pages to check, but how come this fella didn’t get himself killed??

Police officer pointing gun at him as his colleague is dragged away by the truck being hit on the head with a hammer, but he didn’t shoot. Why would that be.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/15/us/minnesota-oeltjenbruns-arrest-hammer-mask-dispute/index.html

Sweetemotion

fullstop wrote: »

Probably already been covered, can’t be arsed reading 30 pages to check, but how come this fella didn’t get himself killed??

Police officer pointing gun at him as his colleague is dragged away by the truck being hit on the head with a hammer, but he didn’t shoot. Why would that be.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/15/us/minnesota-oeltjenbruns-arrest-hammer-mask-dispute/index.html

If you are trying to use the "because he is white" Argument.

They shot a white kid here.

https://nypost.com/2021/04/15/maryland-teen-peyton-ham-fatally-shot-by-state-trooper-was-honors-student/

Feel better now?

dreamers75

Take this for whats it worth, lived there for a while and certain blacks/latinos terrfiy everyone to the point that I called them the "pikeys" of america.

Sadly these "pikeys" love killing cops, unfortunatley a lot of innocent people die by cops because cops are terrified (and untrained in shooting people or well trained.....).

Dont live there anymore and not racist its just the part we dont get over here is these "pikeys" terrorize neighbourhoods, the only similiar thing I can think of for us is the shooting of a "pikey" is the Padraig Nally case.

We dont get it over here, we dont know how these "pikeys" terroize neighbourhoods and sadly normal not "pikey" lads get shot.

fullstop

Sweetemotion wrote: »

If you are trying to use the "because he is white" Argument.

They shot a white kid here.

https://nypost.com/2021/04/15/maryland-teen-peyton-ham-fatally-shot-by-state-trooper-was-honors-student/

Feel better now?

Oh you got me :rolleyes: did you even read what you posted?


“ A witness told police they saw Ham in the driveway “in a shooting stance” and pointing an airsoft gun at the trooper, who opened fire on the teen and wounded him, Jones said.

Another witness said the wounded Ham whipped out a knife and tried to get up, Jones said.”

tayto lover

Foxtrol wrote: »

If you want to judge the victim for issues in his past and imply a threat, we can similarly judge the cop for her involvement in a police cover up and imply that she is more than capable of covering her tracks.

By implying that about her for a current issue is at least jumping he gun ( no pun intended ����) unless you can provide a link to when she committed a criminal act previously which you somehow forgot to do. If you can then I’d like to read it. It might sway my opinion if she had previously been convicted of a violent act.

eagle eye

tayto lover wrote:

By implying that about her for a current issue is at least jumping he gun ( no pun intended ) unless you can provide a link to when she committed a criminal act previously which you somehow forgot to do. If you can then I’d like to read it. It might sway my opinion if she had previously been convicted of a violent act.

And that's exactly it, it would have to be a similar act where a gun was used.
I don't understand how anybody thinks there's more to this than it being a tragic accident.
For sure the officer was negligent and should lose her job over it but it's not even close to an intentional killing.

GreeBo

tayto lover wrote: »

2. The victim was a threat. He had previously robbed a woman at gunpoint. It was therefore very likely and probably suspected by the police officers that he had a gun in the car. He was already proven to be a dangerous thug.

Link to his conviction perhaps?
Your definition of a threat that requires using lethal force to stop clearly differs from mine.

Your whole case is based on its, buts and maybes, I find it incredible that you can't see this.

Considering the *warrant* (note that this is different than a conviction) for the incident dates back to 2019, at what point does he stop being a dangerous gun wielding thug who must be restrained via lethal force? Is it perhaps when he doesn't actually have a gun?

It's a wonder the judge didn't just order his execution and bypass all this awkward trial stuff.

GreeBo

tayto lover wrote: »

By implying that about her for a current issue is at least jumping he gun ( no pun intended ����) unless you can provide a link to when she committed a criminal act previously which you somehow forgot to do. If you can then I’d like to read it. It might sway my opinion if she had previously been convicted of a violent act.

Again, what criminal act that he was convicted for are you referring to?
I believe the warrant was for breaking the terms of his bond, nothing more.