godardc wrote: I haven't read the 10 pages, but...the policeman was somalian ? He wasn't American but was in the American Police ?
From the original CNN story on page 1:
The officer involved in the shooting, Mohamed Noor, extended his condolences to the family in a statement through his attorney. Noor came to the United States at a young age and is thankful to have had so many opportunities, attorney Thomas Plunkett said.
When I initially necro'd this thread, I was going to mention that almost half a mil for bail seems excessive for a dude who probably pulled in 50K yearly for his 3 year stint. Guess it wasn't.
Also, not sure I agree with the comments from the Somali-America Police Association in this article.
Interesting detail in the last sentence in this article too.
The former Minneapolis police officer charged with murder and manslaughter in the July shooting death of Justine Ruszczyk Damond made his first court appearance Wednesday, where his bail was set at $400,000.
During the hearing, Mohamed Noor said his first public words since the incident in south Minneapolis, spelling his name and confirming his address to Judge Kathryn Quaintance. Noor, slight and soft-spoken, said nothing else during the 15-minute hearing at the Public Safety Facility in downtown Minneapolis.
Quaintance set his bail at $400,000 on the condition that he turn over his passport, surrender his firearms and ammunition and refrain from contacting his former partner Matthew Harrity, the lone witness in the racially charged case that drew international outrage and led to the ouster of former police Chief Janeé Harteau. Bail without conditions was set at $500,000. Noor paid the $400,000 conditional bond and left the Hennepin County jail late Wednesday in the company of his attorney.
Police union officials said that Noor was fired from the department on Tuesday.
Throughout the hearing Wednesday, Noor stood behind a glass partition in an orange jail jumpsuit, wearing a solemn expression. He barely turned to face the packed courtroom gallery, never making eye contact with a group of relatives and friends seated in the front row. Several dozen other supporters huddled in the hallway outside the courtroom.
Noor, 32, turned himself in on Tuesday morning, a day after authorities issued a sealed warrant for his arrest. He is charged with firing his gun from inside his police SUV and hitting Damond, who had called 911 to report a suspected assault in the alley behind her Fulton neighborhood home. Her death provoked protests and became a symbol, in Minneapolis and her native Australia, of how police shootings affect all communities. It also led to Harteau’s firing by then-Mayor Betsy Hodges.
Noor maintained his silence, choosing not to speak to state investigators or the grand jury investigating Damond’s death. The grand jury concluded its probe Monday, the day before Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman announced his charging decision.
Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Amy Sweasy argued that Noor’s bail should be substantial, saying that he posed a flight risk, and that her office had developed “credible evidence” last fall that Noor had left the country.
The report proved false, but she said prosecutors grew more worried after hearing from a witness who claimed that he had “offered to hide [Noor] out.”
“These are the witness’ words, not mine,” she said.
Noor’s attorney, Thomas Plunkett, said in court that the charges against his client were baseless, while calling the initial $500,000 bail “frankly, outrageous.”
He pointed out that Noor had submitted his DNA to the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension in June for testing, and later voluntarily went to City Hall to meet with an investigator after rumors surfaced that he had left the country.
Plunkett said that Noor posed no risk of fleeing, adding that the former officer came to Minnesota at the age of 5, escaping a civil war in his native Somalia, and had never known another home.
“He has no connection to any other place,” said Plunkett, after waiving a reading of the charges. “Your Honor, Mr. Noor is an American.”
After hearing from both sides, Quaintance offered the conditional bail and set Noor’s next court date for May 8.
“Officer Noor, like any other person charged with a crime in America, is presumed innocent until proven guilty,” Quaintance said. “If he has a trial, it will be in a court of law, not in the media or in the streets.”
Defense attorney Ryan Pacyga said that he was surprised by the prosecution’s high bail request, particularly considering that Noor voluntarily turned himself in and has ties to the community.
He also scoffed at the prosecution’s depiction of Noor as a danger to the public, pointing out that his alleged crime was committed in the course of his duties as a police officer — a profession that is authorized to use deadly force if lives are in imminent danger. “The point is that we’re not talking about some madman, even under the government’s version of this case, that poses some particular danger to the community out there,” Pacyga said.
Jeronimo Yanez, the only other Minnesota officer in recent history charged in an on-duty shooting, was released on his own recognizance. A jury last summer cleared Yanez of any criminal wrongdoing in the shooting death of Philando Castile during a traffic stop in Falcon Heights.
About a month after that verdict, Damond was killed in Minneapolis.
Messages left for Noor’s father went unreturned on Wednesday.
The Somali-American Police Association broke its months long silence on Wednesday, saying in a statement that it was “saddened” by what it called politically and possibly racially motivated charges.
“We believe Freeman is more interested in furthering his political agenda than he is in the facts surrounding this case,” the statement read. “The charges brought against Officer Noor are not intended to serve justice; rather, they are meant to make an ‘example’ of him.”
An MPD spokeswoman on Wednesday confirmed that an internal probe into the incident was ongoing, but otherwise declined to comment.
Lt. Bob Kroll said claims that Noor plotted to leave the country were news to him.
“He was on administrative leave so he had daily check-ins with [Internal Affairs], I believe,” said Kroll, president of the Minneapolis Police Federation, the union that represents the department’s roughly 880 sworn police officers.
He said they will likely file a grievance on Noor’s behalf to challenge the firing, which is standard practice in disciplinary cases. He said that he wasn’t entirely surprised by the department’s decision to fire Noor, who had been on paid administrative leave since the shooting. “I understand when you’ve got a person facing those charges, there’s a lot of pressure for the administration to get that person off the table, given the public outcry,” he said.
The union has come under fire from critics from both within the department and outside its ranks for not publicly defending Noor.
Noor, who joined the department three years ago, is named in a brutality lawsuit wending its way through federal court. Earlier this month, a judge in that case ruled that an attorney for the woman suing Noor along with another Minneapolis cop and the department was not allowed to ask questions about the Damond shooting.
Police followed in pursuit, and Clark allegedly turned toward them and began advancing toward them “while holding an object which was extended in front of him.” Believing that object to be a gun and saying that they feared for their lives, officers fired at Clark multiple times. They then held their position for about five minutes, according to the press release, until more officers arrived before approaching Clark, handcuffing him and beginning lifesaving efforts.
According to Sacramento Bee reporter Anita Chabria, the officers fired at Clark 20 times. Fire Department personnel pronounced Clark dead at the scene.
In an updated press release, Sacramento police said that there was no firearm located at the scene of the shooting, contrary to what officers said they thought when they shot at Clark 20 times. They only found his cellphone.
Both of the officers involved in the shooting were wearing body cameras, and there is additional audio and video footage from the sheriff’s helicopter, officials said. Police said that material is being prepared to be released to the public.
The officers involved in the shooting have been placed on paid leave.
nels1031 wrote: Also, not sure I agree with the comments from the Somali-America Police Association in this article.
Yeah, those comments are atrocious. This isn't a racial issue, this is about a cop blindly discharging his gun across from his partner, in a vehicle, because he was spooked by a sound. The Somali-American Police Association should be ashamed of trying to play the race card here.
nels1031 wrote: Also, not sure I agree with the comments from the Somali-America Police Association in this article.
Yeah, those comments are atrocious. This isn't a racial issue, this is about a cop blindly discharging his gun across from his partner, in a vehicle, because he was spooked by a sound. The Somali-American Police Association should be ashamed of trying to play the race card here.
The situation itself(I don't think he killed her because she was white) might not have been a racial issue but the fact that: a) People tried to claim that he was fleeing/had fled the country, including the prosecution claiming that they "heard from a witness that he had offered to hide Noor out". b) Had to pay bail vs similar situations where officers were released on their own recognizance c) Had a sealed warrant issued for his arrest, including attempts to apparently paint him as a dangerous individual.
That all is relevant to it being "racially and politically motivated charges". Guy surrendered himself and has been actively cooperating with investigators.
Regarding the brutality lawsuit, I'd not be surprised if it was an attempted fishing expedition. There was a lot of talk from a certain sector about how Noor acted "out of his beliefs".
nels1031 wrote: Also, not sure I agree with the comments from the Somali-America Police Association in this article.
Yeah, those comments are atrocious. This isn't a racial issue, this is about a cop blindly discharging his gun across from his partner, in a vehicle, because he was spooked by a sound. The Somali-American Police Association should be ashamed of trying to play the race card here.
The situation itself(I don't think he killed her because she was white) might not have been a racial issue but the fact that:
a) People tried to claim that he was fleeing/had fled the country, including the prosecution claiming that they "heard from a witness that he had offered to hide Noor out".
b) Had to pay bail vs similar situations where officers were released on their own recognizance
c) Had a sealed warrant issued for his arrest, including attempts to apparently paint him as a dangerous individual.
That all is relevant to it being "racially and politically motivated charges". Guy surrendered himself and has been actively cooperating with investigators.
Fair points, there does seem to be an agenda painted by the prosecution that is racial.
Still, this guy did execute a person. I think he is dangerous, and I don't necessarily think the bail being set at $400,000-500,000 is outrageous given the circumstances. What is outrageous is other police officers not having similar bails set when they are being tried for manslaughter. I'll concede that is racial in this case, but I think consideration has to also be given to the complete failure of our legal system to properly hold police accountable when they break the law. That other officers got off lighter sucks for Noor, but I am only so sympathetic towards another murdering cop. If that is "making an example" out of Noor, it seems a poor choice if that example is an attempt to placate a public growing increasingly furious with police brutality. Making an example of the black guy who killed a white woman isn't good optics. Not saying that isn't happening, because our country is teeming with racism, but I just don't buy the defense's narrative that the charges are only racially motivated. I think Noor was a gak cop who killed a foreign national for absolutely no reason and that deserves to get dealt with harshly.
This quote in particular from nels1031's article is infuriating and approaches the issue I have with the scrutiny Noor is facing:
He also scoffed at the prosecution’s depiction of Noor as a danger to the public, pointing out that his alleged crime was committed in the course of his duties as a police officer — a profession that is authorized to use deadly force if lives are in imminent danger. “The point is that we’re not talking about some madman, even under the government’s version of this case, that poses some particular danger to the community out there,” Pacyga said
Bullgak. Noor was a danger to the community when he killed Diamond. He shouldn't get special consideration because he was a police officer, I don't care how much or how little he is cooperating. What he did wasn't an accident, it was deliberate and done potentially out of fear which further proves how dangerous he was. A jumpy guy with a gun shouldn't be allowed on the streets.
Kanluwen wrote: Regarding the brutality lawsuit, I'd not be surprised if it was an attempted fishing expedition. There was a lot of talk from a certain sector about how Noor acted "out of his beliefs".
It is unfortunate that the one time they take murder by a police officer seriously it involved a black cop killing a white person. Whilst I’m happy to see justice actually happening, it’s cold comfort to all those black people executed for little to no reason by non black cops. And it sadly seems to confirm that black lives do matter less in America.
Future War Cultist wrote: It is unfortunate that the one time they take murder by a police officer seriously it involved a black cop killing a white person. Whilst I’m happy to see justice actually happening, it’s cold comfort to all those black people executed for little to no reason by non black cops. And it sadly seems to confirm that black lives do matter less in America.
I think this is what the whole thing is really about. Setting fairness and the matters of the case aside, it just looks bad especially when you put the progress of this prosecution alongside that of Yanez from the same state.
Future War Cultist wrote: It is unfortunate that the one time they take murder by a police officer seriously it involved a black cop killing a white person. Whilst I’m happy to see justice actually happening, it’s cold comfort to all those black people executed for little to no reason by non black cops. And it sadly seems to confirm that black lives do matter less in America.
Michal Slager, white.
Garret Miller*, white.
Edward Nero*, white.
Brian Rice*, white.
Cesaer Goodson*, black.
William Porter*, black.
Alicia White*, black.
Jason Blackwelder, white.
Randy Trent Harrison, white.
David Harmon-Wright, white.
Scott Smith, white.
Joseph Mantelli, white.
Johannes Mehserle, white.
*Same case, Freddie Gray Death.
That list is by no means exhaustive, but if you pay attention cops do get charged for on duty deaths. Something close to 5+ a year from what I read in a WSJ article a year or two ago. The initial deaths and the media circus following an OIS is much more of a ratings grab then the boring judicial proceedings that happen a year or two down the road and they usually only get cursory coverage from the media, placating the attention spans of the broader public.
Now wether they end up convicted in court or are convicted only receive an outrageously lenient sentence, thats another thing. But the narrative that this officer is only being charged because he’s non-white and the victim white is ridiculous. Alex Jone level conspiracy garbage.
Just look at the facts. Dude never had his body cam on(not required by local procedure in this scenario, but still...) never had a clear view of the vic, dude discharged his firearm at least once inside his vehicle, shooting over or across his partner, seemingly instantly and with no apparent warning. I’m usually one of the few defenders of police in these types of threads when they pop up in the OT, but even this one gives me pause.
With that said, this shooter walks. There seems to be some tomfoolery in his hiring and training and I think the defense will play that up, along with the race issue. Not defending the dude, I just think he’ll never see any of the corners of the Monopolly board for a few reasons. Wouldn’t be upset if I was wrong, though!
Fair points, there does seem to be an agenda painted by the prosecution that is racial.
Still, this guy did execute a person. I think he is dangerous, and I don't necessarily think the bail being set at $400,000-500,000 is outrageous given the circumstances. What is outrageous is other police officers not having similar bails set when they are being tried for manslaughter. I'll concede that is racial in this case, but I think consideration has to also be given to the complete failure of our legal system to properly hold police accountable when they break the law. That other officers got off lighter sucks for Noor, but I am only so sympathetic towards another murdering cop. If that is "making an example" out of Noor, it seems a poor choice if that example is an attempt to placate a public growing increasingly furious with police brutality. Making an example of the black guy who killed a white woman isn't good optics. Not saying that isn't happening, because our country is teeming with racism, but I just don't buy the defense's narrative that the charges are only racially motivated. I think Noor was a gak cop who killed a foreign national for absolutely no reason and that deserves to get dealt with harshly.
Which doesn't really have much to do with this being an example of "officer committing murder". Be careful tossing that term around as it requires malice aforethought for murder to be the appropriate charge.
This quote in particular from nels1031's article is infuriating and approaches the issue I have with the scrutiny Noor is facing:
He also scoffed at the prosecution’s depiction of Noor as a danger to the public, pointing out that his alleged crime was committed in the course of his duties as a police officer — a profession that is authorized to use deadly force if lives are in imminent danger. “The point is that we’re not talking about some madman, even under the government’s version of this case, that poses some particular danger to the community out there,” Pacyga said
Bullgak. Noor was a danger to the community when he killed Diamond. He shouldn't get special consideration because he was a police officer, I don't care how much or how little he is cooperating. What he did wasn't an accident, it was deliberate and done potentially out of fear which further proves how dangerous he was. A jumpy guy with a gun shouldn't be allowed on the streets.
And this is where something else regarding scrutiny will come into play in the next part.
That said, there's a big difference between him being "a danger to the public" and him "not being a good fit as a police officer".
Once he was put on paid leave(whether or not you deem it appropriate; I think in a situation like this it should have been unpaid leave...) and required to surrender his firearms and ammunition to the department? He effectively ceases to be "a danger to the public".
It sucks that Diamond's dead but if it truly is a case of him "being a jump guy with a gun", then christ we need to start taking guns out of the hands of police and private owners ASAP.
Kanluwen wrote: Regarding the brutality lawsuit, I'd not be surprised if it was an attempted fishing expedition. There was a lot of talk from a certain sector about how Noor acted "out of his beliefs".
Sorry, not following here.
There's been a lot of talk from the usual "rabble rabble rabble Muslims takin' our freedomz" crowd that Noor shot Diamond because she presented something that "violated his Muslim beliefs". It's bullgak of course, but it doesn't stop them from being able to claim such a thing exists.
When cases go to court against police officers, there tends to be people with charges/arrests from those officers to attempt to get their own stuff voided.
Future War Cultist wrote: It is unfortunate that the one time they take murder by a police officer seriously it involved a black cop killing a white person. Whilst I’m happy to see justice actually happening, it’s cold comfort to all those black people executed for little to no reason by non black cops. And it sadly seems to confirm that black lives do matter less in America.
I think this is what the whole thing is really about. Setting fairness and the matters of the case aside, it just looks bad especially when you put the progress of this prosecution alongside that of Yanez from the same state.
The demographics of the victim definitely makes this shooting look worse but I think it's telling that the exact same defense gets trotted out. Police work is a dangerous job so in any kind of ambiguous situation the police need to shoot first to protect themselves. If the victim in this instance had been a black man that narrative would play on stereotypes and preconceptions, the black man could have been the perpetrator of what might have been a sexual assault, he might have been armed and hostile, the cops couldn't know if he was a threat and waiting to find out would be too dangerous they had to shoot him. Of course this time it wasn't a black man who called 9/11 to report a possible crime and then waited outside for 15 minutes for the police to arrive it was a female blonde Australian yoga instructor in a bathrobe so the defense that residential neighborhoods in Minneapolis are so dangerous that cops need to draw their duty weapons, chamber a round and hold it in their laps ready to send a round downrange inches in front of their partner's face through the car window into the first unidentified person that approaches their car seem incredibly stupid and unsupportable. The police were called to a residential neighborhood to investigate a suspicious noise that was heard 15 minutes ago, that doesn't justify rolling up into the neighborhood with guns drawn prepared to kill somebody. America isn't that dangerous of a place, it is not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination to believe that investigating a possible scream of distress in that neighborhood should cause the responding police to anticipate having to repel a murderous ambush.
Future War Cultist wrote: It is unfortunate that the one time they take murder by a police officer seriously it involved a black cop killing a white person. Whilst I’m happy to see justice actually happening, it’s cold comfort to all those black people executed for little to no reason by non black cops. And it sadly seems to confirm that black lives do matter less in America.
Michal Slager, white.
Garret Miller*, white.
Edward Nero*, white.
Brian Rice*, white.
Cesaer Goodson*, black.
William Porter*, black.
Alicia White*, black.
Jason Blackwelder, white.
Randy Trent Harrison, white.
David Harmon-Wright, white.
Scott Smith, white.
Joseph Mantelli, white.
Johannes Mehserle, white.
*Same case, Freddie Gray Death.
That list is by no means exhaustive, but if you pay attention cops do get charged for on duty deaths. Something close to 5+ a year from what I read in a WSJ article a year or two ago. The initial deaths and the media circus following an OIS is much more of a ratings grab then the boring judicial proceedings that happen a year or two down the road and they usually only get cursory coverage from the media, placating the attention spans of the broader public.
Now wether they end up convicted in court or are convicted only receive an outrageously lenient sentence, thats another thing. But the narrative that this officer is only being charged because he’s non-white and the victim white is ridiculous. Alex Jone level conspiracy garbage.
It really isn't though. The simple fact is that while charges in and of themselves being filed is one thing that happens, there's a ton of hinky crap happening here. You can choose to ignore "the narrative" but how many white officers have we seen killing people getting heavy bail sentences and forced to surrender passports and firearms?
Just look at the facts. Dude never had his body cam on(not required by local procedure in this scenario, but still...) never had a clear view of the vic, dude discharged his firearm at least once inside his vehicle, shooting over or across his partner, seemingly instantly and with no apparent warning. I’m usually one of the few defenders of police in these types of threads when they pop up in the OT, but even this one gives me pause.
Plenty of people "defend the police" in situations like this. This shoot is probably a pretty crummy one certainly, but it's no different than the Freddie Gray bullgak and those officers walked.
With that said, this shooter walks. There seems to be some tomfoolery in his hiring and training and I think the defense will play that up, along with the race issue. Not defending the dude, I just think he’ll never see any of the corners of the Monopolly board for a few reasons. Wouldn’t be upset if I was wrong, though!
And they damned well should "play that up" when it comes to the race issue. Prosecution claimed they had a witness that offered to hide Noor after they were called out for claiming that he had fled the country.
It's an insinuation that because he's Muslim and an immigrant that he can escape justice. The prosecutor should be disbarred at the very least and his whole damned office investigated heavily.
Fair points, there does seem to be an agenda painted by the prosecution that is racial.
Still, this guy did execute a person. I think he is dangerous, and I don't necessarily think the bail being set at $400,000-500,000 is outrageous given the circumstances. What is outrageous is other police officers not having similar bails set when they are being tried for manslaughter. I'll concede that is racial in this case, but I think consideration has to also be given to the complete failure of our legal system to properly hold police accountable when they break the law. That other officers got off lighter sucks for Noor, but I am only so sympathetic towards another murdering cop. If that is "making an example" out of Noor, it seems a poor choice if that example is an attempt to placate a public growing increasingly furious with police brutality. Making an example of the black guy who killed a white woman isn't good optics. Not saying that isn't happening, because our country is teeming with racism, but I just don't buy the defense's narrative that the charges are only racially motivated. I think Noor was a gak cop who killed a foreign national for absolutely no reason and that deserves to get dealt with harshly.
Which doesn't really have much to do with this being an example of "officer committing murder". Be careful tossing that term around as it requires malice aforethought for murder to be the appropriate charge.
This quote in particular from nels1031's article is infuriating and approaches the issue I have with the scrutiny Noor is facing:
He also scoffed at the prosecution’s depiction of Noor as a danger to the public, pointing out that his alleged crime was committed in the course of his duties as a police officer — a profession that is authorized to use deadly force if lives are in imminent danger. “The point is that we’re not talking about some madman, even under the government’s version of this case, that poses some particular danger to the community out there,” Pacyga said
Bullgak. Noor was a danger to the community when he killed Diamond. He shouldn't get special consideration because he was a police officer, I don't care how much or how little he is cooperating. What he did wasn't an accident, it was deliberate and done potentially out of fear which further proves how dangerous he was. A jumpy guy with a gun shouldn't be allowed on the streets.
And this is where something else regarding scrutiny will come into play in the next part.
That said, there's a big difference between him being "a danger to the public" and him "not being a good fit as a police officer".
Once he was put on paid leave(whether or not you deem it appropriate; I think in a situation like this it should have been unpaid leave...) and required to surrender his firearms and ammunition to the department? He effectively ceases to be "a danger to the public".
It sucks that Diamond's dead but if it truly is a case of him "being a jump guy with a gun", then christ we need to start taking guns out of the hands of police and private owners ASAP.
What? That's a complete nonsequitor here. What do legally armed citizens have to do with a jumpy cop violating safety procedures while on patrol and shooting at someone he hadn't even identified and therefore couldn't make a reasonable threat assessment before escalating to using lethal force? We might have discovered a bad apple so we better hurry up and get rid of the oranges?
Fair points, there does seem to be an agenda painted by the prosecution that is racial.
Still, this guy did execute a person. I think he is dangerous, and I don't necessarily think the bail being set at $400,000-500,000 is outrageous given the circumstances. What is outrageous is other police officers not having similar bails set when they are being tried for manslaughter. I'll concede that is racial in this case, but I think consideration has to also be given to the complete failure of our legal system to properly hold police accountable when they break the law. That other officers got off lighter sucks for Noor, but I am only so sympathetic towards another murdering cop. If that is "making an example" out of Noor, it seems a poor choice if that example is an attempt to placate a public growing increasingly furious with police brutality. Making an example of the black guy who killed a white woman isn't good optics. Not saying that isn't happening, because our country is teeming with racism, but I just don't buy the defense's narrative that the charges are only racially motivated. I think Noor was a gak cop who killed a foreign national for absolutely no reason and that deserves to get dealt with harshly.
Which doesn't really have much to do with this being an example of "officer committing murder". Be careful tossing that term around as it requires malice aforethought for murder to be the appropriate charge.
This quote in particular from nels1031's article is infuriating and approaches the issue I have with the scrutiny Noor is facing:
He also scoffed at the prosecution’s depiction of Noor as a danger to the public, pointing out that his alleged crime was committed in the course of his duties as a police officer — a profession that is authorized to use deadly force if lives are in imminent danger. “The point is that we’re not talking about some madman, even under the government’s version of this case, that poses some particular danger to the community out there,” Pacyga said
Bullgak. Noor was a danger to the community when he killed Diamond. He shouldn't get special consideration because he was a police officer, I don't care how much or how little he is cooperating. What he did wasn't an accident, it was deliberate and done potentially out of fear which further proves how dangerous he was. A jumpy guy with a gun shouldn't be allowed on the streets.
And this is where something else regarding scrutiny will come into play in the next part.
That said, there's a big difference between him being "a danger to the public" and him "not being a good fit as a police officer". Once he was put on paid leave(whether or not you deem it appropriate; I think in a situation like this it should have been unpaid leave...) and required to surrender his firearms and ammunition to the department? He effectively ceases to be "a danger to the public".
It sucks that Diamond's dead but if it truly is a case of him "being a jump guy with a gun", then christ we need to start taking guns out of the hands of police and private owners ASAP.
What? That's a complete nonsequitor here. What do legally armed citizens have to do with a jumpy cop violating safety procedures while on patrol and shooting at someone he hadn't even identified and therefore couldn't make a reasonable threat assessment before escalating to using lethal force? We might have discovered a bad apple so we better hurry up and get rid of the oranges?
I mean, you could have actually read rather than thrown a kneejerk comment after seeing something about guns.
Fair points, there does seem to be an agenda painted by the prosecution that is racial.
Still, this guy did execute a person. I think he is dangerous, and I don't necessarily think the bail being set at $400,000-500,000 is outrageous given the circumstances. What is outrageous is other police officers not having similar bails set when they are being tried for manslaughter. I'll concede that is racial in this case, but I think consideration has to also be given to the complete failure of our legal system to properly hold police accountable when they break the law. That other officers got off lighter sucks for Noor, but I am only so sympathetic towards another murdering cop. If that is "making an example" out of Noor, it seems a poor choice if that example is an attempt to placate a public growing increasingly furious with police brutality. Making an example of the black guy who killed a white woman isn't good optics. Not saying that isn't happening, because our country is teeming with racism, but I just don't buy the defense's narrative that the charges are only racially motivated. I think Noor was a gak cop who killed a foreign national for absolutely no reason and that deserves to get dealt with harshly.
Which doesn't really have much to do with this being an example of "officer committing murder". Be careful tossing that term around as it requires malice aforethought for murder to be the appropriate charge.
This quote in particular from nels1031's article is infuriating and approaches the issue I have with the scrutiny Noor is facing:
He also scoffed at the prosecution’s depiction of Noor as a danger to the public, pointing out that his alleged crime was committed in the course of his duties as a police officer — a profession that is authorized to use deadly force if lives are in imminent danger. “The point is that we’re not talking about some madman, even under the government’s version of this case, that poses some particular danger to the community out there,” Pacyga said
Bullgak. Noor was a danger to the community when he killed Diamond. He shouldn't get special consideration because he was a police officer, I don't care how much or how little he is cooperating. What he did wasn't an accident, it was deliberate and done potentially out of fear which further proves how dangerous he was. A jumpy guy with a gun shouldn't be allowed on the streets.
And this is where something else regarding scrutiny will come into play in the next part.
That said, there's a big difference between him being "a danger to the public" and him "not being a good fit as a police officer".
Once he was put on paid leave(whether or not you deem it appropriate; I think in a situation like this it should have been unpaid leave...) and required to surrender his firearms and ammunition to the department? He effectively ceases to be "a danger to the public".
It sucks that Diamond's dead but if it truly is a case of him "being a jump guy with a gun", then christ we need to start taking guns out of the hands of police and private owners ASAP.
What? That's a complete nonsequitor here. What do legally armed citizens have to do with a jumpy cop violating safety procedures while on patrol and shooting at someone he hadn't even identified and therefore couldn't make a reasonable threat assessment before escalating to using lethal force? We might have discovered a bad apple so we better hurry up and get rid of the oranges?
I mean, you could have actually read rather than thrown a kneejerk comment after seeing something about guns.
What part of you post do you think I didn't read? Rolling up to investigate a possible scream of distress with your gun drawn, a round chambered and holding it in your lap ready to fire at the first person who moves towards you is pretty much the definition of a jumpy guy with a gun. Noor was clearly a danger to the public because his actions clearly demonstrated that he viewed the public as an imminent threat to himself and used that presumptive threat as justification to push the escalation of force directly to the lethal level on routine patrol calls. I still don't see why you would go to hyperbolic extremes about disarming police and other citizens based on the irresponsible actions of one particular individual or why you'd rather respond with trying to deflect with snarky insults instead of clarifying your point.
What part of you post do you think I didn't read? Rolling up to investigate a possible scream of distress with your gun drawn, a round chambered and holding it in your lap ready to fire at the first person who moves towards you is pretty much the definition of a jumpy guy with a gun. Noor was clearly a danger to the public because his actions clearly demonstrated that he viewed the public as an imminent threat to himself and used that presumptive threat as justification to push the escalation of force directly to the lethal level on routine patrol calls. I still don't see why you would go to hyperbolic extremes about disarming police and other citizens based on the irresponsible actions of one particular individual or why you'd rather respond with trying to deflect with snarky insults instead of clarifying your point.
The part where you literally didn't read his comment about how "a jumpy guy with a gun shouldn't be allowed on the streets"? We've had plenty of examples of "law-abiding citizens" and police being just as jumpy or irresponsible with firearms, yet we're making it a big deal now?
And you're making a big deal over a snarky comment in a thread that actually has had fairly tame discussion?
What part of you post do you think I didn't read? Rolling up to investigate a possible scream of distress with your gun drawn, a round chambered and holding it in your lap ready to fire at the first person who moves towards you is pretty much the definition of a jumpy guy with a gun. Noor was clearly a danger to the public because his actions clearly demonstrated that he viewed the public as an imminent threat to himself and used that presumptive threat as justification to push the escalation of force directly to the lethal level on routine patrol calls. I still don't see why you would go to hyperbolic extremes about disarming police and other citizens based on the irresponsible actions of one particular individual or why you'd rather respond with trying to deflect with snarky insults instead of clarifying your point.
The part where you literally didn't read his comment about how "a jumpy guy with a gun shouldn't be allowed on the streets"? We've had plenty of examples of "law-abiding citizens" and police being just as jumpy or irresponsible with firearms, yet we're making it a big deal now?
And you're making a big deal over a snarky comment in a thread that actually has had fairly tame discussion?
Law abiding citizens who shoot people without the justification of a reasonable threat of imminent harm go to prison for murder. I'm not making a big deal about it, I asked you to refrain from that kind of hyperbolic snark so we can avoid a derailment.
We've been making a big deal about jumpy cops and people with a gun committing unjustifiable shootings for a while now. This morning when I checked ESPN for NCAA basketball scores I found out that a protest over a cop shooting an unarmed black man was held outside the Sacramento Kings' arena and delayed the game for 20 minutes.
Now you're handwaving away all the protests, riots and national coverage of police shootings and killings because it's not as big of a deal as the death of Diamond even though her death has sparked far less protests/marches/riots and coverage than the deaths of black people during police encounters.
Post what you want but I think you're overdoing the snarkiness.
Prestor Jon wrote: Of course this time it wasn't a black man who called 9/11 to report a possible crime and then waited outside for 15 minutes for the police to arrive it was a female blonde Australian yoga instructor in a bathrobe so the defense that residential neighborhoods in Minneapolis are so dangerous that cops need to draw their duty weapons, chamber a round and hold it in their laps ready to send a round downrange inches in front of their partner's face through the car window into the first unidentified person that approaches their car seem incredibly stupid and unsupportable. The police were called to a residential neighborhood to investigate a suspicious noise that was heard 15 minutes ago, that doesn't justify rolling up into the neighborhood with guns drawn prepared to kill somebody. America isn't that dangerous of a place, it is not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination to believe that investigating a possible scream of distress in that neighborhood should cause the responding police to anticipate having to repel a murderous ambush.
It does look rather bad when you take that into account, but I've called the emergency services enough times that I know there can be incorrect assumptions just between me and the operator. Then add in at least one other relay (if the operator contacts the cops directly) or more if the open assignment goes to a police controller first. Even if the caller stressed that she's not sure and not too worried yet that part might have been left out when the assignment reached the patrol. Jumpy guy with a gun anyway, ofc.
But it would be interesting to see a transcript of the 911 call and the assignment given to the patrol.
Prestor Jon wrote: Of course this time it wasn't a black man who called 9/11 to report a possible crime and then waited outside for 15 minutes for the police to arrive it was a female blonde Australian yoga instructor in a bathrobe so the defense that residential neighborhoods in Minneapolis are so dangerous that cops need to draw their duty weapons, chamber a round and hold it in their laps ready to send a round downrange inches in front of their partner's face through the car window into the first unidentified person that approaches their car seem incredibly stupid and unsupportable. The police were called to a residential neighborhood to investigate a suspicious noise that was heard 15 minutes ago, that doesn't justify rolling up into the neighborhood with guns drawn prepared to kill somebody. America isn't that dangerous of a place, it is not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination to believe that investigating a possible scream of distress in that neighborhood should cause the responding police to anticipate having to repel a murderous ambush.
It does look rather bad when you take that into account, but I've called the emergency services enough times that I know there can be incorrect assumptions just between me and the operator. Then add in at least one other relay (if the operator contacts the cops directly) or more if the open assignment goes to a police controller first. Even if the caller stressed that she's not sure and not too worried yet that part might have been left out when the assignment reached the patrol. Jumpy guy with a gun anyway, ofc.
But it would be interesting to see a transcript of the 911 call and the assignment given to the patrol.
Regardless of the transcript I think the trial is going to show that Noor broke a lot of dept procedures and used lethal force without justification.
It’s not proper procedure for the police to do drive by shootings. I strongly doubt that Noor was trained to draw his duty weapon and hold the loaded pistol in his lap while on patrol so he could snap fire through an open window.
Shooting through the opposite car window with the bullet passing with inches in front of his partners face and body isn’t likely something that Noor was taught to do in his training. In a life threatening emergency situation such a safety violation would be justified but shooting at an unidentified target doesn’t meet that threshold.
That’s the final catch 22 for Noor, he shot somebody before he could accurately identify them or their intent. If Noor couldn’t identify who was approaching the car and what he/she intended then how did he determine that the person posed a reasonable threat of bodily harm that requires the use of lethal force? If Noor was able to identify the person as a woman in a bathrobe, even if he couldn’t identify that she was holding a cellphone and didn’t know she was the person who called 9/11, Noor still needs to explain why it’s reasonable to decide that a woman in a bathrobe approaching the police car even one holding an unidentified object in her hand needs to shot on sight.
Unlike other cases I think it’s going to be very difficult for Noor to show that his process was correct. That’s what gets other officers in shootings acquitted, they follow the correct process/SOP up to the moment when an object or a movement occurs that could be interpretsted in a snap judgment to possibly be a weapon or reaching for a weapon so the officers shoot, the other person dies and the outcome is that person wasn’t armed. The outcome of a dead unarmed citizen who wasn’t as dangerous as he/she was perceived is bad but the process leading up to that death shields the officer from the negative outcome. If the person did have a weapon to reach for or the object was a weapon and the cops hesitate they could get hurt or killed so they shoot first and if they’re wrong but followed procedure it’s unlikely that they get convicted of a crime.
The Somali-American Police Association seems an awfully specific group to have its own association. I looked up their webpage but I couldn't see anything that even hinted at membership numbers. It is based in Minneapolis, though, same as Noor. Maybe Noor is the whole of the Somali-American Police Association? That would explain their outspoken support for him.
Anyhow, I think the police firing Noor was wrong, and almost certainly a response to political pressure. They could have suspended Noor without pay until the conclusion of the trial, so as not to give any indication to a jury as their own opinion of the event. Really, suspension without pay should be standard in shootings (if an officer is acquitted then backpay could be given).
sebster wrote: T They could have suspended Noor without pay until the conclusion of the trial, so as not to give any indication to a jury as their own opinion of the event. Really, suspension without pay should be standard in shootings (if an officer is acquitted then backpay could be given).
It can take a year or more to get to and then through a trial. Most cops are gonna lose their house, car, and likely family trying to make it that long without pay. If the shoot looks 'good' from the police internal affairs review, no reason to feth over the cop in that way. If the shoot looks bad, may as well fire him and let him deal with the consequences.
There is a difference between an administrative finding that you violated polity, and a criminal verdict that you didn’t break the law beyond a reasonable doubt.
d-usa wrote: There is a difference between an administrative finding that you violated polity, and a criminal verdict that you didn’t break the law beyond a reasonable doubt.
Exactly. An internal review can show that an employee violated company policy/conditions of employment to the extent that the employee should be fired regardless of whether or not any crime was committed. In this instance Noor could have been found to have acted in a manner that warranted his termination from the police force regardless of whether or not criminal charges were filed or the outcome of any prosecution. In general I think it's fair to put cops on paid leave while an internal investigation is conducted and determine any punishment once the internal investigation is concluded. Criminal proceedings really shouldn't factor into it.
sebster wrote: The Somali-American Police Association seems an awfully specific group to have its own association. I looked up their webpage but I couldn't see anything that even hinted at membership numbers. It is based in Minneapolis, though, same as Noor. Maybe Noor is the whole of the Somali-American Police Association? That would explain their outspoken support for him.
Anyhow, I think the police firing Noor was wrong, and almost certainly a response to political pressure. They could have suspended Noor without pay until the conclusion of the trial, so as not to give any indication to a jury as their own opinion of the event. Really, suspension without pay should be standard in shootings (if an officer is acquitted then backpay could be given).
We actually have a pretty large Somali population in Minnesota. However, I think there are only a handful of somali police officers.
Here is some more about the organization and it has member sin different cities as well.
CptJake wrote: It can take a year or more to get to and then through a trial. Most cops are gonna lose their house, car, and likely family trying to make it that long without pay. If the shoot looks 'good' from the police internal affairs review, no reason to feth over the cop in that way. If the shoot looks bad, may as well fire him and let him deal with the consequences.
I understand the logic, but think it has serious ramifications for internal police reviews impacting on jury decisions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: We actually have a pretty large Somali population in Minnesota. However, I think there are only a handful of somali police officers.
Here is some more about the organization and it has member sin different cities as well.
The family of the Australian woman fatally shot by a Minneapolis police officer has filed a lawsuit seeking $50 million.
Minneapolis, MN – The family of the Australian yoga instructor who was fatally shot by a Minneapolis police officer after she called 911 to report a possible assault in the alley behind her home has filed a lawsuit alleging her civil rights were violated.
Her family has also accused police officials and the officer’s partner of “conspiracy to cover up the true facts surrounding the killing of Justine,” the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported.
The incident occurred on July 15, 2017 when 32-year-old Officer Mohamed Noor responded to the call from 40-year-old Justine Damond with his partner, Officer Matthew Harrity, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported.
With Officer Noor in the passenger seat, Officer Harrity pulled into the alleyway with the patrol car’s headlights deactivated, and removed the safety hood from the holster of his duty weapon.
He said that he heard a dog barking as he neared Damond’s home, and that he slowed the vehicle to two miles per hour, but never stopped.
Approximately two minutes later, the officers approached the end of the alley, and waited for a bicyclist to pass as they cleared from the call.
Officer Harrity said that moments later, he heard a voice and a thump towards the rear of the patrol car, and then “caught a glimpse of a person’s head and shoulders outside his window.”
He said that the person, later identified as Damon, was approximately two feet away, and that he could not see her hands, and did not know if she had any weapons.
The startled officer recalled having said, “Oh s--t,” or “Oh Jesus,” and grabbed for his duty weapon, believing his life was in danger. He said he drew the weapon and held it to his rib cage, pointed downwards.
Officer Harrity said that he then heard a noise “that sounded like a light bulb dropping on the floor, and saw a flash.”
After checking to see if he had been shot, Officer Harrity said he realized that Officer Noor’s right arm was extended towards him, and that Damon was standing outside the driver’s side window with her hands on the left side of her abdomen, covering a gunshot wound.
She said, “‘I’m dying,’ or ‘I’m dead,’” according to the court documents.
Officer Harrity rushed to her aid, and told Officer Noor to re-holster his weapon and to activate his bodycam.
He initiated CPR, and Officer Noor eventually took over. Damond died at the scene.
Officer Noor was charged with third-degree murder “perpetrating eminently dangerous act and evincing depraved mind,” and second-degree manslaughter “culpable negligence creating unreasonable risk” in Hennepin County District Court on March 20, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported.
Noor’s employment with the Minneapolis Police Department was terminated following his arrest.
The lawsuit by Damond’s family claimed that Noor and Officer Harrity conspired to keep their body-worn cameras from collecting potential incriminating evidence.
The civil rights complaint, which is seeking more than $50 million in damages, was filed in federal court in Minneapolis on behalf of Damond’s father, John Ruszczyk, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported.
The lawsuit alleged that cameras would have contained “evidence that would incriminate Noor, evidence that would expose the false statements of Harrity, and evidence that would show the public and the jurors in both the criminal and civil trials the truth of the circumstances of Justine’s death.”
It also claimed that failure of officers to activate bodycams was common in the department, and said the officers in Damond’s case failed to activate their bodycams “knowing that evidence needed to convict a police officer would be lost. ... Noor and Harrity did so to protect themselves — to insulate any lies they might later tell.”
The lawsuit also named former Minneapolis Police Chief Janee Harteau, current Police Chief Medaria Arrandondo, and the city of Minneapolis, FOX News reported.
Well. This case again makes me happy here police by law can shoot only to stop dangerous action toward other without other option. Simply other raising hands suddenly etc isn'' enough.
Alot of filler in this article, but some sketchy new details about Noor’s behavior while a member of the Minn. police.
Minneapolis, MN – Field training officers and two psychiatrists raised concerns about former Minneapolis Police Officer Mohamed Noor’s fitness to serve the community for more than two years before he fatally shot Justine Damond in July of 2017, court documents showed.
Damond, 40, called 911 to report a possible assault in the alley behind her home.
The then ran outside to speak with the Officer Noor, 32, and his partner as they started to leave the area.
As she approached their patrol vehicle, Officer Noor shot from the passenger seat, across his partner, hitting Damond at the driver’s side window.
Information regarding early concerns about the former officer’s fitness for duty came to light on Wednesday, after Noor’s attorney filed a motion seeking the dismissal of the murder and manslaughter charges filed against Noor in the wake of Damond’s death, FOX News reported.
In their response, Hennepin County prosecutors filed documents pertaining to Noor’s early 2015 pre-hiring evaluations, during which two psychiatrists expressed concerns that he was unable to handle the stress of police work and was unwilling to deal with people, the Star Tribune reported.
The evaluators also noted that, in comparison to other recruits, Noor was more likely to become impatient over minor infractions, to be more demanding, to struggle getting along with others, and to have a limited network of social support.
According to the evaluation, Noor “reported disliking people and being around them,” but didn’t meet diagnostic criteria for mental illness, chemical dependency, or a personality disorder, the Star Tribune reported.
As such, Noor was deemed as “psychiatrically fit to work as a cadet police officer for the Minneapolis Police Department,” the prosecution’s filing read.
A civilian human resources employee reviewed the psychiatric report and contacted the psychiatrist about the seemingly conflicting information it contained, but was told that the evaluator stood by his recommendation, the Star Tribune reported.
Officer Noor’s behavior on the street soon raised red flags, as well.
On Apr. 8, 2016, a field training officer reported that Officer Noor was avoiding calls, and that he preferred to drive in circles while ignoring calls that he could have assigned himself to, KARE reported.
The requests for service were simple – such as checking on a suspicious vehicle and addressing a road hazard, the field training officer noted.
Court documents also referenced dashcam footage of a May 18, 2017 traffic stop that showed Officer Noor as he approached the driver to address a minor traffic violation, the Star Tribune reported.
According to a police report, Officer Noor had witnessed the driver making a vulgar hand gesture towards a bicyclist before the driver passed another vehicle on the right while failing to signal.
"When the defendant approached the driver's side of the stopped car, the first thing he did was point his gun at the driver's head,” the filing read.
Officer Noor and his partner did not “document their display of force or any justification for it,” and the failure to signal citation was ultimately dismissed after Officer Noor failed to show up for the court hearing.
Two months later, on July 15, 2017, Officer Noor and his partner, Officer Matthew Harrity, responded to Damond’s report of a possible assault in the alley behind her home, the Star Tribune reported.
With Officer Noor in the passenger seat, Officer Harrity pulled into the alleyway with the patrol car’s headlights deactivated, and removed the safety hood from the holster of his duty weapon.
Officer Harrity said that he heard a dog barking as he neared Damond’s home, and that he slowed the vehicle to two miles per hour, but never stopped.
Approximately two minutes later, the officers approached the end of the alley, and waited for a bicyclist to pass as they cleared from the call.
Officer Harrity said that moments later, he heard a voice and a thump towards the rear of the patrol car, and then “caught a glimpse of a person’s head and shoulders outside his window.”
He said that the person, later identified as Damond, was approximately two feet away, and that he could not see her hands, and did not know if she had any weapons.
The startled officer recalled having said, “Oh s--t,” or “Oh Jesus,” and grabbed for his duty weapon, believing his life was in danger. He said he drew the weapon and held it to his rib cage, pointed downwards.
Officer Harrity said that he then heard a noise “that sounded like a light bulb dropping on the floor, and saw a flash.”
After checking to see if he had been shot, Officer Harrity said he realized that Officer Noor’s right arm was extended towards him, and that Damon was standing outside the driver’s side window with her hands on the left side of her abdomen, covering a gunshot wound.
She said, “‘I’m dying,’ or ‘I’m dead,’” according to the court documents.
Officer Harrity rushed to her aid, and told Officer Noor to re-holster his weapon and to activate his bodycam.
He initiated CPR, and Officer Noor eventually took over. Damond died at the scene.
Noor’s employment with the Minneapolis Police Department was terminated following his arrest.
Noor was charged with third-degree murder “perpetrating eminently dangerous act and evincing depraved mind,” and second-degree manslaughter “culpable negligence creating unreasonable risk” in Hennepin County District Court on March 20, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported.
Damond’s family has also filed a $50 million wrongful death suit, accusing Noor and Officer Harrity of conspiring to hide evidence by not activating their bodycams during the fatal encounter, the Star Tribune reported.
The lawsuit alleged that cameras would have contained “evidence that would incriminate Noor, evidence that would expose the false statements of Harrity, and evidence that would show the public and the jurors in both the criminal and civil trials the truth of the circumstances of Justine’s death.”
It also claimed that failure of officers to activate bodycams was common in the department, and said the officers in Damond’s case failed to activate their bodycams “knowing that evidence needed to convict a police officer would be lost. ... Noor and Harrity did so to protect themselves — to insulate any lies they might later tell.”
The lawsuit also named former Minneapolis Police Chief Janee Harteau, current Police Chief Medaria Arrandondo, and the city of Minneapolis, FOX News reported.
Also, body cameras should be mantadory in every department, and not having them switched on should be a sackable offence. From the minute you go out on patrol, camera on. If it stops working for some reason, you stop, report it, and get it fixed. The fething binmen in my city have cameras on their lorries and they have to make sure they’re working too before going out. There’s absolutely no excuse.
I used to think body cams would solve some of these problems, but then a bunch of cops choked a dude to death for selling loose cigarettes with video rolling, and it didn't matter.
The real problem I think is the level of discretion that prosecutors and juries allow police - thinks that would clearly send a non-officer to jail often don't even merit charges in a police officer, and that's a problem.
No jest. Whether he should or should not have been employed is one thing that should be looked at. After all, he was considered stable enough to be employed.
But whether he should or should not have been employed is a different question to what should be done now. Future War Cultist reads the essay and concludes he's a nut job (I read that as he has a psychological condition) who should not have been employed. People with psychological conditions can usually use them as mitigating against their culpability. This suggests, with no sarcasm or jest involved, that Future War cultists thinks this person should not be prosecuted due to having a psychological condition.
I think that he absolutely should be prosecuted. What I’m getting at is who the feth vetted him and allowed to carry a badge and a gun, and why nothing was done over the earlier incidents.
Henry wrote: People with psychological conditions can usually use them as mitigating against their culpability.
There is a vast chasm between having a psychological condition that makes you unqualified to do police work, and being legally insane; the latter of which is the legal standard (M'Naghten Rule) not not being convicted in a court of law.
By the way, people who aren't convicted because they are found not guilty by reason of insanity don't just walk free - they are then typically involuntarily committed and then spend more time on average institutionalized than they would have if found sane and imprisoned.
Ouze wrote: I used to think body cams would solve some of these problems, but then a bunch of cops choked a dude to death for selling loose cigarettes with video rolling, and it didn't matter.
The real problem I think is the level of discretion that prosecutors and juries allow police - thinks that would clearly send a non-officer to jail often don't even merit charges in a police officer, and that's a problem.
Indeed, and on top of that, training standards and police mindset are also a huge issue. "Officer safety" is promoted above and beyond everything else to the point that the most minor of movements can be cause to clear leather and open fire as a threat, they are seemingly trained to be deathly terrified of everything.
Lethal force is used in situations that in any other developed nation would never be addressed by resorting to a firearm, and the statistics are shocking. German police kill 20 fewer times as many people per capita every year as US police do. Per capita, in 2014, they killed 0.00875 people per 100,000 residents. The NYPD kill 0.15, the LAPD kill 0.5 and Kern County CA kills 1.5, for a rate that it 17x, 57x, and 171x the rate of people killed by police in Germany respectively. The total number of shots fired by police in Germany in 2014 was a grand total of 46, while in the US we see many incidents every year where police fire that many or more in a single shooting.
The shift from police being "peace officers" into "law enforcement" has not had successful results.
Working in a correctional setting also makes one jaded in that regard. Other LEOs are frequently quick to point out that Correctional staff aren’t “real law enforcement”. But while they have the “luxury” of shooting to kill every time someone looks scary, I am frequently the only person interacting with hundreds of criminals at a time with a handy can of mace to protect myself with.
Ouze wrote: I used to think body cams would solve some of these problems, but then a bunch of cops choked a dude to death for selling loose cigarettes with video rolling, and it didn't matter.
The real problem I think is the level of discretion that prosecutors and juries allow police - thinks that would clearly send a non-officer to jail often don't even merit charges in a police officer, and that's a problem.
Indeed, and on top of that, training standards and police mindset are also a huge issue. "Officer safety" is promoted above and beyond everything else to the point that the most minor of movements can be cause to clear leather and open fire as a threat, they are seemingly trained to be deathly terrified of everything.
Lethal force is used in situations that in any other developed nation would never be addressed by resorting to a firearm, and the statistics are shocking. German police kill 20 fewer times as many people per capita every year as US police do. Per capita, in 2014, they killed 0.00875 people per 100,000 residents. The NYPD kill 0.15, the LAPD kill 0.5 and Kern County CA kills 1.5, for a rate that it 17x, 57x, and 171x the rate of people killed by police in Germany respectively. The total number of shots fired by police in Germany in 2014 was a grand total of 46, while in the US we see many incidents every year where police fire that many or more in a single shooting.
The shift from police being "peace officers" into "law enforcement" has not had successful results.
In Finland use of gun for police is so much discouraged one cop is currently being under pretrial investigation(not sure if that's proper legal term for the finnish term though but fairly literal translaton) for misconduct having shot at leg of a knife wielder for excessive use of force(the person shot had been making a scene at parking lot hitting cars with knife. Police ordered him to drop the knife but he refused). Not convicted yet anyway but gives idea how strict limits we have for use of force.
That's stupid, what this police officer should have done ? Let himself being hurt ?
...
I am legally alowed to kill anyone coming to me with a knife if they are within 7 meters, and I am a fu****g national guard
godardc wrote: That's stupid, what this police officer should have done ? Let himself being hurt ?
...
I am legally alowed to kill anyone coming to me with a knife if they are within 7 meters, and I am a fu****g national guard
And from the post above he was attacking cars. So if you were a car you would be in your right to defend your self. Maybe the dude was far away from anybody else when when police officer shot him in the leg, maybe he was moving towards a human target. It seems like they are looking into it to see if the police officer's behaviour was appropriate. That sounds like a reasonable process to me. The officer did their thing and now the investigation is doing their thing.
What would happen if you kill somebody who has a knife within 7 meters of you? Would people just accept that you killed somebody without looking into it? What if you lied about the circumstances? Shouldn't an investigation be the least that's done when somebody uses (deadly) force, especially if they are in a privileged position when it comes to access to deadly weapons, training, and their job (like police or military)?
The police in most western countries except the USA are trained to de-escalate violent situations and shoot to disable rather than kill, as a last resort instead of a first resort.
The exception I think is the UK, where we don't have armed police except for the special firearms units who are scrambled to gun crimes and terrorist incidents. They go in hard and fast in chaotic situations.
Anyway, the point is that it's the USA that has a high incidence of police killing people, not the rest of the western world. The USA also has a high incidence of the police killing innocent people.
Ideally I'd like for them to pull every single police officer off the street, REGARDLESS of their jurisdiction, and put them through mandatory retraining on non-lethal methods, de-escalation tactics, and general reevaluation of personality traits to make sure we don't have someone like that freak that had "You're fethed" and skulls on their AR.
Ideally I'd like this training to last about 6 months. Not let a single cop back on the street until the entire police force is reeducated. The whole 6 months.
The police in most western countries except the USA are trained to de-escalate violent situations and shoot to disable rather than kill, as a last resort instead of a first resort.
The exception I think is the UK, where we don't have armed police except for the special firearms units who are scrambled to gun crimes and terrorist incidents. They go in hard and fast in chaotic situations.
Anyway, the point is that it's the USA that has a high incidence of police killing people, not the rest of the western world. The USA also has a high incidence of the police killing innocent people.
Yep. Here shooting is pretty much last resort only to be used if there's _clear direct threat_ to police or some other person. Until then no shooting allowed. Now albeit I don't know exact situation from the above case(I'm going by news, not being personal witness) but simply not dropping a knife when ordered is NOT grounds for shooting unless he's actually immediate threat to somebody. If he's just hacking at cars that's not life threatening situation to anybody. Now if he were to make a dash toward person with knife at hand that's another thing.
The exception I think is the UK, where we don't have armed police except for the special firearms units who are scrambled to gun crimes and terrorist incidents. They go in hard and fast in chaotic situations.
Even then they try to deescalate and subdue if they can and firing a shot is seen as the very last resort. Even the "hard and fast" screaming "armed police" is intended to cause confusion and an opportunity for the police to subdue rather than shoot.
Just Tony wrote: to make sure we don't have someone like that freak that had "You're fethed" and skulls on their AR.
Out of all the police shootings, that one was one one of the most infuriating. Good work by his lawyer keeping the bodycam footage away from the jury, I guess, because that was clear-cut capital murder.
I think the UK model is pretty awesome, and would probably work in urban areas of the US. How does the UK model work in more rural and less urbanized areas?
Whoever vetted him should also be charged with man-slaughter. They’re saying he was unstable, but “should” be fit for duty? I support cops because I have friends in the force and most cops have been decent to me (barring one guy who sounded unstable himself) but guys like this give police officers a bad name. If he was “cleared” to work, he should be “cleared” for prison. Along with the guy who assessed him for duty.
Easy E wrote: I think the UK model is pretty awesome, and would probably work in urban areas of the US. How does the UK model work in more rural and less urbanized areas?
Well, at least in England (I know Northern Ireland is different as a hold over of the troubles which means that many of their officers are issued firearms as routine but Wales and Scotland could also have different policies), even the more rural areas will have dedicated firearms officers (there's around 6,500 AFOs in the UK, of which 2,500 are in the Met, leaving 4,000 outside London). That is required as many of the firearms in the UK are in the hands of farmers (shotguns and rifles for pest control) and the gun clubs which have ranges for shooting are also outside of the cities and so people who own legal firearms (such as rifles) will typically live reasonably close to one of these clubs as part of the condition for owning a gun in the UK is that you either have a need for it (such as a farmer needing it for pest control) or use it for recreation at a licensed gun club a certain number of times a year at a minimum. The firearms teams will be located around the county with each covering their own patch but within range of each other if necessary. And, importantly, all of those firearms police are held to the same high standard. They need to complete retraining every year to keep their position on the firearms response team and that training is not just go on a course for a couple of hours and plink on a range to demonstrate aptitude. It includes psychological evaluation, fitness, firearms safety, proper procedure for engaging with the public etc.
Firearms officers are also not allowed to take their weapons home. When they are not on the clock, their weapons are stored in their police station armoury.
Obviously "rural" in the UK will not translate to "rural" in the US due to the much larger area of the US.
I’m not sure if unarmed police could work in the US. Wouldn’t they be sitting ducks? Keep the guns, but just recruit and train better.
The Police Service Of Northern Ireland all carry guns (the only territorial police force in the UK who do so) and they do all right. Vetting and training is stringent and rigorous. Even putting your hand on the grip of your gun while it’s in its holster requires a bloody good reason. Training emphasises deescalation, not in your face ‘respect mah authorita!’ bs.
I’ll try to find a link, but there was an incident once where dissident republicans (IRA wannabes basically) phoned in a fake 999 call in an isolated rural area at night to lure the patrol into an ambush. Despite coming under fire in the dark, they held their nerve and didn’t return fire, but instead called for backup. I think they then managed to swamp the area and force them to surrender. I don’t see why any police in a rich democratic country can’t be trained to this level of restraint.
Another aspect is what happens after a police shooting. Here in the UK, after the police shoot a suspect, they immediately secure the wounded suspect and begin first aid. For an example of this you can look at the footage of the two men who killed Lee Rigby getting shot after charging the firearms officers. Within seconds of them going down the police have them secured and are giving them first aid treatment until the ambulance arrives. After the suspect is no longer a threat, the aim immediately switches to keeping them alive if possible.
In the footage of many police shootings in the US, that first aid treatment after a shooting doesn't happen. The officers cuff the suspect and then they are left to bleed to death.
That kind of behaviour after the act, where no effort is made by the officers to save the life of the suspect, leaves a very different impression than if they administered first aid.
The culture of police in the US needs to change, there is far too much emphasis on combatives and a "warrior" ethos in many instances (and I say that as someone who owns two dozen firearms and spends 2-3 nights a week fencing). Any time I see a "thin blue line" bumper sticker or those blue Punisher skulls, I immediately realize these people have missed the point of what police are for.
However, more than that, police in the US are a widely disparate group with no centralized administrative or command structure, they're all local level organizations and subject to what competencies, infrastructure, and budgets are available, and are extremely susceptible to "big fish small pond" issues. One department may be well funded with adequate staff and good training and sane leadership, but the next county over can be woefully underfunded and with half the people they need and an incompetent sheriff resulting in a department that commits all sorts of injustices, and the only way that gets fixed is when enough high profile issues occur for the Feds to come in and clean house. This makes comprehensively reforming police extremely difficult as they're all their own little agencies beholden to their own interests and constrained by local resources.
The fact that officers fired for cause (or that resigned just beforeso) are routinely immediately rehired by another agency is another major issue.
Sometimes I think people watch too many SWAT tv documentaries. Sit in on a normal muster in an average department and you won't see a hint of "combatives" or "warrior ethos"
Vaktathi wrote: The culture of police in the US needs to change, there is far too much emphasis on combatives and a "warrior" ethos in many instances (and I say that as someone who owns two dozen firearms and spends 2-3 nights a week fencing). Any time I see a "thin blue line" bumper sticker or those blue Punisher skulls, I immediately realize these people have missed the point of what police are for.
However, more than that, police in the US are a widely disparate group with no centralized administrative or command structure, they're all local level organizations and subject to what competencies, infrastructure, and budgets are available, and are extremely susceptible to "big fish small pond" issues. One department may be well funded with adequate staff and good training and sane leadership, but the next county over can be woefully underfunded and with half the people they need and an incompetent sheriff resulting in a department that commits all sorts of injustices, and the only way that gets fixed is when enough high profile issues occur for the Feds to come in and clean house. This makes comprehensively reforming police extremely difficult as they're all their own little agencies beholden to their own interests and constrained by local resources.
The fact that officers fired for cause (or that resigned just beforeso) are routinely immediately rehired by another agency is another major issue.
It’s not my place to say, but I feel like organisations like the police (and fire and ambulances) shouldn’t be broken down at the county/city level but at the state level. Might help encourage better training (and funding).
Elbows wrote: Sometimes I think people watch too many SWAT tv documentaries. Sit in on a normal muster in an average department and you won't see a hint of "combatives" or "warrior ethos"
The impression of such mindsets, at least on my end, is from what I see personally at the range, on the road, from news events, and my own personal interactions with officers (including my most recent Jury duty). Hell, the place that sells first responder/duty gear a couple blocks from me has all the outside windows plastered entirely from end to end with just pictures of dudes all carrying firearms in low-ready or aiming positions and preparing to enagage...something, despite that it sells no firearms and half the floorspace is EMT stuff
It’s not my place to say, but I feel like organisations like the police (and fire and ambulances) shouldn’t be broken down at the county/city level but at the state level. Might help encourage better training (and funding).
It's an odd system for sure. In theory it means police are drawn from and are supported by their local communities, but it also makes oversight, coordination, funding, etc extremely difficult and variable, with lots of weird layers. Sitting here at work, in theory I'm served by the Oregon State Police, the Multnomah County Sheriff, the Portland Police Department, and the Port of Portland Police, all independent agencies, and thats not getting into Federal agencies operating in the area.
Vaktathi wrote: Sitting here at work, in theory I'm served by the Oregon State Police, the Multnomah County Sheriff, the Portland Police Department, and the Port of Portland Police, all independent agencies, and thats not getting into Federal agencies operating in the area.
So in theory you could be bogged down in a nightmare of bureaucracy with just the four local organisations, not to mention what happens if the ATF, DEA, FBI (or whatever letter agency) want to have a word with you about something? Not that a small country automatically means less paperwork, ofc, but in general there's only one land-based police force I can get in trouble with - the ordinary blue police that cover my area and the cities around it. If I was more into boating there's a few police trained to do stuff at sea but they're severely outnumbered by our "Sea Guard" which are a combo of police, customs agent and border watch with a couple EMTs thrown in.
Whatever action is taken the department can't investigate themself, however - if a blue-shirted cop shoots at someone (or uses gas, tells a trained police dog to attack etc) his chief can't just stamp it and say it's OK. The case is usually handled by a neighboring department in order to make sure no one gets favorable treatment for being the chief's pet or something.
Addressing his questionable fitness for duty, there has been a huge push in recent years to hire Somali officers in most law enforcement agencies around the twin cities. With a large and growing immigrant community that doesn't share a culture or language with the majority of Minnesotans, they want officers who can interact with and understand that community. Could that lead to some fudging to fill in the ranks? Perhaps.
However, more than that, police in the US are a widely disparate group with no centralized administrative or command structure, they're all local level organizations and subject to what competencies, infrastructure, and budgets are available, and are extremely susceptible to "big fish small pond" issues. One department may be well funded with adequate staff and good training and sane leadership, but the next county over can be woefully underfunded and with half the people they need and an incompetent sheriff resulting in a department that commits all sorts of injustices, and the only way that gets fixed is when enough high profile issues occur for the Feds to come in and clean house. This makes comprehensively reforming police extremely difficult as they're all their own little agencies beholden to their own interests and constrained by local resources.
I didn't know that. Thanks for explaining it. I would guess that that is the main cause for US law enforcement being so woefully incompetent compared to law enforcement in other developed countries. It is difficult to ensure that you have a well-trained and properly funded police force if there is no central control or funding. I guess this also means that that the recruitment standard of different departments varies as well, which explains why some of the questionable characters involved in past shootings were able to join the police. This makes a lot clear.
Future War Cultist wrote: I’m not sure if unarmed police could work in the US. Wouldn’t they be sitting ducks? Keep the guns, but just recruit and train better.
The Police Service Of Northern Ireland all carry guns (the only territorial police force in the UK who do so) and they do all right. Vetting and training is stringent and rigorous. Even putting your hand on the grip of your gun while it’s in its holster requires a bloody good reason. Training emphasises deescalation, not in your face ‘respect mah authorita!’ bs.
I’ll try to find a link, but there was an incident once where dissident republicans (IRA wannabes basically) phoned in a fake 999 call in an isolated rural area at night to lure the patrol into an ambush. Despite coming under fire in the dark, they held their nerve and didn’t return fire, but instead called for backup. I think they then managed to swamp the area and force them to surrender. I don’t see why any police in a rich democratic country can’t be trained to this level of restraint.
Yeah, there is no need for police to be unarmed. Police in the Netherlands, Germany, Russia or pretty much every developed country carry guns all the time as well, and yet shootings of unarmed people in all those countries are extremely rare, and even killing armed criminals is relatively uncommon. Police forces here just show much more restraint, even when the bullets start flying. Even when criminals open fire on police, the focus is usually still on deescalation and bringing about an outcome where the criminals can be arrested alive, rather than the focus on neutralising any threats and taking down the "tango" that US police forces seem to have from my observation.
So basically, if police violence is to end, there needs to be a culture change, and I unfortunately do not see that happen in the current highly divisive climate of the US, for reasons which can no longer be discussed on Dakka.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Another aspect is what happens after a police shooting. Here in the UK, after the police shoot a suspect, they immediately secure the wounded suspect and begin first aid. For an example of this you can look at the footage of the two men who killed Lee Rigby getting shot after charging the firearms officers. Within seconds of them going down the police have them secured and are giving them first aid treatment until the ambulance arrives. After the suspect is no longer a threat, the aim immediately switches to keeping them alive if possible.
In the footage of many police shootings in the US, that first aid treatment after a shooting doesn't happen. The officers cuff the suspect and then they are left to bleed to death.
That kind of behaviour after the act, where no effort is made by the officers to save the life of the suspect, leaves a very different impression than if they administered first aid.
That's great if your officers are trained to treat gunshot wounds. Are they?
To set up IV's? Stop bleeding without causing more damage to the person? That is what it takes to treat gunshot victims. All police in the US are required to take BLS training - basically they know CPR and how to prevent shock - they aren't going to touch a gunshot victim though. Just another way that they could be made liable for someones death. The shooting might have even been justified...then they "make a mistake" in treating the gunshot wound and they lose their job/ect/ect. Also - do you really want the guy who just shot treating your injuries? I sure don't.
If they are trained that is great. However to be trained - they would need to basically have gone through paramedic school. Learn basics of human anatomy. I really doubt they do that. Then at that point - why not just be a paramedic. It's safer and probably pays about the same.
To set up IV's? Stop bleeding without causing more damage to the person? That is what it takes to treat gunshot victims. All police in the US are required to take BLS training - basically they know CPR and how to prevent shock - they aren't going to touch a gunshot victim though. Just another way that they could be made liable for someones death. The shooting might have even been justified...then they "make a mistake" in treating the gunshot wound and they lose their job/ect/ect. Also - do you really want the guy who just shot treating your injuries? I sure don't.
If they are trained that is great. However to be trained - they would need to basically have gone through paramedic school. Learn basics of human anatomy. I really doubt they do that. Then at that point - why not just be a paramedic. It's safer and probably pays about the same.
You don't have to go through paramedic school to learn how to stabilise a gunshot wound. I learned how to do that on summer camp. If I can learn it in a a day, then so can police officers. Basically all you need to do is to apply pressure to the wound to prevent the victim from bleeding out, and then apply a tourniquet (which you can make from your belt). This is something that anyone can do, and which you can learn in a couple of hours. Apart from that, you can learn how to properly transport gunshot victims and a few things (like never give the victim water, seal off gunshot wounds to the chest with plastic and tape) that are really simple but can save lives.
I have to agree with Iron Captain here, it also needn't necessarily even be about stabilising the casualty, just slowing the rate of deterioration might make the difference between them lasting long enough for the fully trained paramedics to arrive and save their life or not, and at a first aid level a wound is a wound, it'd make no difference in terms of how you'd treat it whether it was a gunshot, a stabbing, an industrial accident or whatever. Also (speaking from the perspective of Britain) , so long as you follow the training you've been given you should be legally fine, AFAIK in the UK at least first aiders have such legal protection in the form of a good Samaritan clause.
I do find it very odd that a Police officer would be perfectly willing to be the direct cause of such an injury, but would be completely unwilling to provide any medical assistance to the casualty they themselves caused.
How to survive getting shot is usually a basic part of police training, and many officers carry the basic equipment needed to treat a gunshot wounds in their cars and on their belts.
Because getting shot is an occupational hazard and they want to be able to save the live of a fellow officer. So pretending the couldn’t is stupid.
The initial treatment for gunshot is the same as for any serious lacerating or penetrating injury. You try to control bleeding and give the casualty support against the onset of shock.
These skills are taught in the standard one day emergency first aid course.
To set up IV's? Stop bleeding without causing more damage to the person? That is what it takes to treat gunshot victims. All police in the US are required to take BLS training - basically they know CPR and how to prevent shock - they aren't going to touch a gunshot victim though. Just another way that they could be made liable for someones death. The shooting might have even been justified...then they "make a mistake" in treating the gunshot wound and they lose their job/ect/ect. Also - do you really want the guy who just shot treating your injuries? I sure don't.
If they are trained that is great. However to be trained - they would need to basically have gone through paramedic school. Learn basics of human anatomy. I really doubt they do that. Then at that point - why not just be a paramedic. It's safer and probably pays about the same.
Why does an Officer need to know how to place an IV? Are they carrying all the equipment as well as the IV bags? Why are we worried about fluids when we should be worried about applying pressure to the wound and stopping bleeding? Do you know what you are talking about?
Why does an Officer need to know how to place an IV? Are they carrying all the equipment as well as the IV bags? Why are we worried about fluids when we should be worried about applying pressure to the wound and stopping bleeding? Do you know what you are talking about?
Apparently not. Considering he was also saying that police wouldn't do it for fear of being sued or fired when the reason they'd be doing this is because they just shot someone. At that point I can't help but think that there is some other action which they have committed that they are likely to be sued or fired over, before we also remember that laws prevent individual police officers from being sued.
And, again, British firearms officers give first aid treatment to wounded suspects. That is why the two men who killed a soldier both survived to stand trial after being shot by the police.
You don't have to go through paramedic school to learn how to stabilise a gunshot wound. I learned how to do that on summer camp. If I can learn it in a a day, then so can police officers. Basically all you need to do is to apply pressure to the wound to prevent the victim from bleeding out, and then apply a tourniquet (which you can make from your belt). This is something that anyone can do, and which you can learn in a couple of hours. Apart from that, you can learn how to properly transport gunshot victims and a few things (like never give the victim water, seal off gunshot wounds to the chest with plastic and tape) that are really simple but can save lives.
I don't believe that tourniquets are widely recommended for first aid any more, due to the potential for nerve damage if they are inappropriately applied (the pressure needs to be periodically released to prevent nerve damage). There are of course outliers (I believe military combat fatigues are designed with tourniquets built in which allow for a tourniquet to be quickly applied during combat) but for most people applying pressure to the wound site is the recommended first aid treatment. Also, tourniquets don't work for neck, head or torso wounds (which, considering the police are aiming for centre mass, will be the majority of police gunshot wounds).
While I agree with the premise of police providing first aid after a shooting, didn't that occur here? The article says the police officers administered CPR, are folks saying they should've instead been dressing the wound?
Just trying to clarify, as I lost the thread.
Also, this police officer really, really needs to go to jail for such a reckless act, and I think/hope he will...
I don't believe that tourniquets are widely recommended for first aid any more, due to the potential for nerve damage if they are inappropriately applied (the pressure needs to be periodically released to prevent nerve damage). There are of course outliers (I believe military combat fatigues are designed with tourniquets built in which allow for a tourniquet to be quickly applied during combat) but for most people applying pressure to the wound site is the recommended first aid treatment. Also, tourniquets don't work for neck, head or torso wounds (which, considering the police are aiming for centre mass, will be the majority of police gunshot wounds).
From the First Aid training day I had the greater risk with tourniquets isn't nerve damage but not turning the pressure up tight enough. Ergo a person keeps turning until they see the blood flow easing off, but they've only shut down the outer veins not the inner ones, which can continue bleeding, which means its not doing any good at all (and might even speed up any problems because you've shut down one part of the flow but not the other so there is little return flow).
It's made worse by the fact that they REALLY hurt when done right so if the person is still awake its going to add to their pain in a very serious and noticeable way; which can further cause people to ease off on the pressure they apply.
The timing aspect is important, but the risk is less - nerve damage is bad, but bleeding out is fatal. Plus doctors will often shut off blood for considerable lengths of time when performing operations so the dangers are less so long as medics arrive on scene in good time. This means that the other important thing as well as pressure is time - some tourniquet kits have a slot to write the time on them otherwise the advise is to write it clearly on the person themselves (on the body not the clothing). If medics know the time it was applied and its applied well then it should help far more so than leaving the person without it whereby they can bleed out.
In first aid training tourniquets are basically in a slot whereby they are now (in the English system) advised to be taught in lines of work where you are likely to need them. So your average office first aid course won't cover them, but agriculture, conservation, building, etc... lines of work will cover them.
I don't believe that tourniquets are widely recommended for first aid any more, due to the potential for nerve damage if they are inappropriately applied (the pressure needs to be periodically released to prevent nerve damage). There are of course outliers (I believe military combat fatigues are designed with tourniquets built in which allow for a tourniquet to be quickly applied during combat) but for most people applying pressure to the wound site is the recommended first aid treatment. Also, tourniquets don't work for neck, head or torso wounds (which, considering the police are aiming for centre mass, will be the majority of police gunshot wounds).
The stigma over tourniquets is kind of a thing in the past. Trauma surgeons have gotten to the point that they're capable of preventing significant damage within hours of a tourniquet being applied now. For us in the military, they are literally our first line of first aid. If you are significantly wounded in an extremity, you apply the tourniquet. End of story. Now torso, head, and neck, yes, direct pressure is the only real way to go, as tourniquets just aren't feasible options there.
As for the US military, no, our uniforms do not have built in tourniquets. We all carry at least one though, in a deployed environment.
Sound like your training may be different from our training - although that could also just be a different use of language. For us, tourniquets are last ditch, life or death, arterial bleeds only. Once they go on they stay on until a medic does something about it. The rules used to be you released the pressure every (I think) ten minutes, to prevent nerve damage and cell death. But that introduces the risk of septicemia and you've just removed a perfectly good seal which you've got to try and reapply. So end up you killing the person anyway. Once it goes on, it stays on. That's why tourniquets are a no-go unless you're prepared to say that the loss of a limb was the least worse outcome in the situation.
But tourniquet and IV are a far stretch from immediate actions following a gunshot wound. It isn't paramedic training level at all, and anybody who thinks it is should probably clue themselves up a bit first (not aimed at you djones).
Henry wrote: Sound like your training may be different from our training - although that could also just be a different use of language. For us, tourniquets are last ditch, life or death, arterial bleeds only. Once they go on they stay on until a medic does something about it. The rules used to be you released the pressure every (I think) ten minutes, to prevent nerve damage and cell death. But that introduces the risk of septicemia and you've just removed a perfectly good seal which you've got to try and reapply. So end up you killing the person anyway. Once it goes on, it stays on. That's why tourniquets are a no-go unless you're prepared to say that the loss of a limb was the least worse outcome in the situation.
But tourniquet and IV are a far stretch from immediate actions following a gunshot wound. It isn't paramedic training level at all, and anybody who thinks it is should probably clue themselves up a bit first (not aimed at you djones).
We tend to operate under a "Golden Hour" rule when it comes to combat injuries. Our guys who are injured to the point of requiring surgery, will be to a surgical facility in no more then one hour. Could have a lot to do with our training focus on using tourniquets.
Vaktathi wrote: It's an odd system for sure. In theory it means police are drawn from and are supported by their local communities, but it also makes oversight, coordination, funding, etc extremely difficult and variable, with lots of weird layers. Sitting here at work, in theory I'm served by the Oregon State Police, the Multnomah County Sheriff, the Portland Police Department, and the Port of Portland Police, all independent agencies, and thats not getting into Federal agencies operating in the area.
In the UK, police forces are divided up into various regions (Scotland used to have a dozen of them or so, but they've all been merged recently into Police Scotland. Since Strathclyde Police used to be the biggest regional service by far, that basically means that their way of doing things is now everyone's way of doing things - a little bit of a shock to some of the more rural services), but my understanding is that police officers are allowed to make arrests and otherwise exercise the powers of their role anywhere in the country - the Sweeney could still nick you in Lands End or Berwick. I think some of the smaller forces "subcontract" things like expensive forensics or complicated murder investigations to the larger forces, and when there's a big event (a protest march, or an unpopular foreign visit) in London, they'll rope in coppers from all over the country.
This is complicated slightly by the non-Geographic Police services, in addition to the local County Constabulary there are (Or were, I haven't checked in a while and can't really be bothered to do so now) the MoD Police, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the British Transport Police, IIRC the Airports have their own dedicated Police and their may be other little oddities for example the Dover Port Authority does or did have their own albeit tiny Police service independent of Kent Police. But as AndrewGPaul said, we generally don't have issues with County lines or jurisdiction and during the riots of a few years ago Police from all over the country were drafted in to the trouble spots to help the overwhelmed local forces, for example as Strathclyde have already been mentioned there were more than a few from there helping restore order in London.
Surely even with divisional lines the US polices forces still draft in from other groups when there's a major event? Although it sounds like the more localised level of recruitment and training might cause issues with how different police teams work and coordinate together?
Also I believe some of the independent police forces - like Transport Police etc... are not "full police" and are closer to a private security firm/group yet have the title of police.
To take the example of the BTP, that they have a different role - policing the railways - may mean that they lack some of the more specialist investigatory units that the local geographically based Police might have (For example, they probably don't have a dedicated fraud squad or cyber-crime unit), but I don't think it's fair or accurate to describe them as effectively a security firm with the title of Police. They have the same powers as other Police and in the case of the BTP, MoD Police and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary are/were fully or partially armed too, they might hand you over to your local authority for investigation and processing if appropriate but you'll certainly be in no less trouble if arrested by the BTP than your local Police.
No, they do their own investigation and processing. BTP have their own custody suits so can process their own suspects. The just have their own limited areas of authority. Although in the case of CNC crossing them is generally going to end up being shot. They are all armed and generally don’t interact with the public much, unless said public are doing something very stupid. BTP on the other hand interact with the public more than most police forces.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Another aspect is what happens after a police shooting. Here in the UK, after the police shoot a suspect, they immediately secure the wounded suspect and begin first aid. For an example of this you can look at the footage of the two men who killed Lee Rigby getting shot after charging the firearms officers. Within seconds of them going down the police have them secured and are giving them first aid treatment until the ambulance arrives. After the suspect is no longer a threat, the aim immediately switches to keeping them alive if possible.
In the footage of many police shootings in the US, that first aid treatment after a shooting doesn't happen. The officers cuff the suspect and then they are left to bleed to death.
That kind of behaviour after the act, where no effort is made by the officers to save the life of the suspect, leaves a very different impression than if they administered first aid.
I pointed this out when Eric Garner died during an altercation with the NYPD.
Steelmage wrote:
A lot of things seem odd in this situation.
1. The suspect is wrestled to the ground. OK. Fine so far. Discussion of the use of a possibly unauthorized technique aside.
2. The suspect exclaims that he cannot breathe. OK. Still fine. As long as he has enough air to express coherent words, he is OK.
3. Suspect stops talking. This is not good. I would have expected to see an immediate reaction from the police officers.
4. The suspect becomes unresponsive. This is very bad. Why isn't any of the officers checking his breathing, pulse and other vitals?
5. No attempt at CPR. This is beyond bad. Why aren't the police officers (who have at least basic first aid training) trying to save this man?
6. EMTs arrive. Suspect doesn't respond to verbal cues. Suspect doesn't respond to physical stimulus. Suspect does not give a clear indication of having a pulse......and the EMT does nothing? Cuffs aren't removed, pupillary response is not checked. AED isn't applied. No attempt at resuscitation.
Pardon the necro, but new development for those that were interested in this case and took part in this discussion.
The last time I’ll necro this thread, I promise! Lock it up if the necro is a gross violation or if this topic falls under the politics ban, I suppose.
Tldr: Guilty, potential* for 20 years behind bars, sentencing next month.
Former Minneapolis police officer Mohamed Noor has been found guilty of third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in the fatal shooting of Justine Ruszczyk Damond.
He was acquitted of second-degree murder. Noor was immediately handcuffed and taken into custody. Sentencing is scheduled for 9 a.m. June 7.
He faces between 10- and 15 years in prison for the third-degree murder charge and 3 1/2 to nearly 5 years for the manslaughter charge.
A jury of two women and 10 men began deliberations Monday after hearing three weeks of testimony and announced the verdict Tuesday afternoon after about 11 hours of deliberation.
Noor, 33, was charged with second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter for the July 15, 2017 killing of Damond.
Noor and his partner, Matthew Harrity, were responding to Damond’s 911 call about a possible sexual assault in the alley behind her south Minneapolis home. Noor and Harrity both testified that a loud sound on their squad startled them, and that Noor fired from the passenger seat through Harrity’s open driver’s side window about 11:40 p.m.
Mohamed Noor and his attorneys headed to the courtroom on Tuesday to hear the verdict in the case against the former Minneapolis police officer. More Noor testified that upon hearing the sound, Harrity yelled out in fear, struggled to unholster his gun and looked at him with fear in his eyes. Noor told the court that the startling sound, his typically calm partner’s reaction and a figure raising a right arm at Harrity’s window caused him to fear that they were being ambushed.
Prosecutors argued that Noor acted unreasonably when he fired, and was too quick to assume that Damond was a threat. Noor and Harrity should have considered whether Damond was the 911 caller, the subject of Damond’s 911 call or a woman from a previous 911 call placed earlier in the night by a neighbor, prosecutors have said.
Prosecutors leveraged Harrity’s reaction against Noor. While Harrity testified that he was spooked by the noise and the sight of a silhouette at his window, he also acknowledged that he had been unable to see Damond’s hands and that it was premature to use deadly force based on the information he had at the time.
Noor is the second officer in recent Minnesota history to be charged with an on-duty killing. St. Anthony police officer Jeronimo Yanez was acquitted in 2017 for fatally shooting Philando Castile during a 2016 traffic stop.
*Potentially 20 years if they max out on all the charges, which is doubtful. My semi-educated guess, he’ll end up serving the better part of a decade behind bars.
Tragic case, but finally some element of closure. From what I read, this dude never should’ve been a cop, or kept in an administrative role at most. I hope the family wins(may already have won, can’t remember) big in the civil suit against the city.
The shooter was not black.
The shooter shot without seeing a firearm or threat or verbal cues of a threat.
The shooter shot across the driver through the open window. What?
Future War Cultist wrote: At this rate I'm going to assume that US police training is third world level. As in absolutely woeful.
You'll never do it but at this rate I think you need to massively consolidate your police forces. All the gakky sheriff departments and small city forces need to be disbanded and the state police should take over. Only the largest cities should be allowed to retain their forces, and I only offer that as a compromise. Like literally cities with populations of more than 2 million. With this all done focus can be given to higher standards of training and accountability.
Problem here is that Americans culturally already have mistrust towards what they perceive as the "militarization" of police. If you centralize police forces it will cause an uproar. And yes their training is atrocious imo. If I acted the way some police do when I was in Fallujah I would have probably been court martialed and be sitting in a military jail somewhere right now.
You can have a decentralized police force and have training standarts y know?
Future War Cultist wrote: At this rate I'm going to assume that US police training is third world level. As in absolutely woeful.
You'll never do it but at this rate I think you need to massively consolidate your police forces. All the gakky sheriff departments and small city forces need to be disbanded and the state police should take over. Only the largest cities should be allowed to retain their forces, and I only offer that as a compromise. Like literally cities with populations of more than 2 million. With this all done focus can be given to higher standards of training and accountability.
Problem here is that Americans culturally already have mistrust towards what they perceive as the "militarization" of police. If you centralize police forces it will cause an uproar. And yes their training is atrocious imo. If I acted the way some police do when I was in Fallujah I would have probably been court martialed and be sitting in a military jail somewhere right now.
You can have a decentralized police force and have training standarts y know?
The problem is likely one of logistics and organisation at the large scale when trying to deal with a heavily broken up and divided system. Being so heavily broken up will increase the administrative costs significantly and there's also likely a lot more potential for pushback or local issues causing problems. Everyone will want their say and each independent unit might well not want to be "bossed around" by outside or higher up units. This is likely then further compounded when you get a change of local or national political groups, each of which could throw up huge potential barriers or changes of their own and stall things.
Heavily fragmented services typically run at higher costs for less results, the UK has this with the rail network. Sure in theory having each unit operate on its own can result in some savings, but any inter-connectivity gets far more costly and tricky.
That said I agree they can improve the training; the issue is going to be one of costs and enforcement of the new standards and changes.
I must admit that when I watch US dramas that relate to the police services its always strange to see so many different departments and units that can override others. Granted much of that is simplified for dramas (eg I doubt just fake-being FBI agents or such works as often as the writers for Supernatural would like us to believe); but that its even possible is quite surprising in itself.
Future War Cultist wrote: At this rate I'm going to assume that US police training is third world level. As in absolutely woeful.
You'll never do it but at this rate I think you need to massively consolidate your police forces. All the gakky sheriff departments and small city forces need to be disbanded and the state police should take over. Only the largest cities should be allowed to retain their forces, and I only offer that as a compromise. Like literally cities with populations of more than 2 million. With this all done focus can be given to higher standards of training and accountability.
Problem here is that Americans culturally already have mistrust towards what they perceive as the "militarization" of police. If you centralize police forces it will cause an uproar. And yes their training is atrocious imo. If I acted the way some police do when I was in Fallujah I would have probably been court martialed and be sitting in a military jail somewhere right now.
You can have a decentralized police force and have training standarts y know?
The problem is likely one of logistics and organisation at the large scale when trying to deal with a heavily broken up and divided system. Being so heavily broken up will increase the administrative costs significantly and there's also likely a lot more potential for pushback or local issues causing problems. Everyone will want their say and each independent unit might well not want to be "bossed around" by outside or higher up units. This is likely then further compounded when you get a change of local or national political groups, each of which could throw up huge potential barriers or changes of their own and stall things.
Heavily fragmented services typically run at higher costs for less results, the UK has this with the rail network. Sure in theory having each unit operate on its own can result in some savings, but any inter-connectivity gets far more costly and tricky.
That said I agree they can improve the training; the issue is going to be one of costs and enforcement of the new standards and changes.
I must admit that when I watch US dramas that relate to the police services its always strange to see so many different departments and units that can override others. Granted much of that is simplified for dramas (eg I doubt just fake-being FBI agents or such works as often as the writers for Supernatural would like us to believe); but that its even possible is quite surprising in itself.
yeah no, the US has no excuse, when we manage to run 26 seperate police departments and a federal level one aswell as a military police, using 4 diffrent languages then a state with that ammount of backing which is even more centralised and uses one language and one constitution not the 27 we have then no, that is failure on their part.
On the positive a few weeks ago I was running a squad at a shooting competition. We had sheriff's marksmanship team (yours truly), sheriff, city PoPo marksmanship team, Dept. of Public Safety (highway patrol), and DEA on the same squad. So many Glocks....(shudder)
I like to think this is a breakdown of the blue wall that led to this, and I also like to take some local pride that doing the right thing still matters......
...... but the I look at the Castillo Case and realize the only reason No'or is going to jail when others haven't is because he was a rookie, Somali cop.
Frazzled wrote: Castillo case? My google fu comes up with a death row inmate. Que?
Your search failed because the spelling is Philando Castile - the guy who had a concealed carry permit, told the cop he had a concealed carry permit as required, reached for his wallet as directed by the cop, and then was executed by the cop anyway. The cop was, of course, acquitted.
Frazzled wrote: Castillo case? My google fu comes up with a death row inmate. Que?
Your search failed because the spelling is Philando Castile - the guy who had a concealed carry permit, told the cop he had a concealed carry permit as required, reached for his wallet as directed by the cop, and then was executed by the cop anyway. The cop was, of course, acquitted.
