Australian woman in Minnesota calls cops then is fatally shot by one of the officers

[Matt_Crimson]

Quote:

• Minnesota mayor says she is asking investigators "to release as much information, as quickly as they are able to"
• The shooting occurred as two officers responded to a 911 call
  

(CNN)Minnesota authorities are investigating the shooting death of an Australian woman who was killed by a Minneapolis police officer Saturday night.

Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said it is providing consular assistance to her family. The agency declined to identify the woman citing privacy concerns.

The shooting occurred as two Minneapolis police officers were responding to a 911 call of a possible assault shortly before 11 p.m., Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges said.


At some point one of the officers fired a weapon, killing the woman. The officers were wearing body cameras but they were not turned on during the incident, the mayor said.
The Minnesota Department of Public Safety Bureau of Criminal Apprehension is leading the investigation, Hodges said. 


The Hennepin County Medical Examiner's Office will conduct an autopsy on the woman and release her identity after the family has been notified, Hodges said. "As mayor of our City,  wife, and a grandmother, I am heartsick and deeply disturbed by what occurred last night," Hodges said Sunday.


"There are still many questions about what took place, and while the investigation is still in its early stages, I am asking the BCA to release as much information, as quickly as they are able to."

The incident sent shock waves through Minneapolis and Australia. On Sunday, members of Women's March Minnesota honored the victim in a vigil.
"This woman was a beautiful light. She was a healer, she was loved. She should still be here," one woman said to applause.

"This should not have happened... that could've been me, that could've been you, that could've been you, that could've been any of us. And we're gonna talk and we're gonna work as a community to make sure this doesn't happen again," she added.

Chalk drawings on the driveway where they gathered said the victim would be remembered as "a loving woman, a light to everyone.

"


Does anyone besides me think there should be some type of punishment for not having your body cameras turned on? I don't see the point in having them if they're not even going to record what's happening. 

Not only that but this is the type of thing that starts riots and make people think officers have something to hide.


*sorry for the varying font sizes. Never seems to come out right or correct on my phone.

[GMDino]

(07-17-2017, 12:54 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: "


Does anyone besides me think there should be some type of punishment for not having your body cameras turned on? I don't see the point in having them if they're not even going to record what's happening. 

Not only that but this is the type of thing that starts riots and make people think officers have something to hide.


*sorry for the varying font sizes. Never seems to come out right or correct on my phone.

Whole story is weird.  I didn't read where she was shot (her yard/home/the alley) but if she called about noises I'd think she wasn't out where they were investigating.

I agree though that those cameras need to be on if they have them.  For everyone's sake.

[*michaelsean*]

Yeah no reason that I can think of not to have them on. It makes you look bad from the start I think.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-17-2017, 12:54 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: "


Does anyone besides me think there should be some type of punishment for not having your body cameras turned on? I don't see the point in having them if they're not even going to record what's happening. 

Not only that but *this is the type of thing that starts riots* and make people think officers have something to hide.


*sorry for the varying font sizes. Never seems to come out right or correct on my phone.

She's white.

[Matt_Crimson]

(07-17-2017, 01:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: Whole story is weird.  I didn't read where she was shot (her yard/home/the alley) but if she called about noises I'd think she wasn't out where they were investigating.

I agree though that those cameras need to be on if they have them.  For everyone's sake.

Yeah the story is pretty weird. The officer has been identified as Mohamed Noor (probably affiliated with ISIS (I'm kidding)) and he apparently shot over his partner while still sitting in the passenger seat of their cruiser. Wtf???? What police department is that taught in? 

Quote:http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/shooting-death-of-justine-damond-in-minneapolis-sparks-calls-for-federal-investigation/news-story/2d2486888c0c6d8fa1ca3d8f4bc7df91

• THE police officer who shot dead an Australian woman after she called 911 for help in America’s Midwest had little more than two years’ experience on the force.
  
  
  

Mohamed Noor, from the Minneapolis Police Department, was sitting in the passenger seat of a police car when he shot across his partner, killing 40-year-old Justine Ruszczyk Damond about 11.30pm Saturday local time, according to KSTP.

The bride-to-be was shot multiple times, sources told KSTP. A mobile phone reportedly found near her body raised the prospect police thought it was a gun. No weapons were found at the scene.

Noor and his unidentified partner, whose cameras were not turned on during the shooting, have been placed on paid administrative leave.

He also apperently has a pending federal complaint against him from another woman.

[Au165]

(07-17-2017, 01:20 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah no reason that I can think of not to have them on.  It makes you look bad from the start I think.

So it's actually a really complex issue the LE community has been trying to navigate for a while now. So a couple things to consider.

One major issue is the amount of data these things consume. People want high definition video from these things which means it is a large amount of data. They want the data to be inaccessible to the officers which means it has to be moved up to a cloud server somewhere. They want it to be kept for an insanely long amount of time to go back and reference. When you consider these  things what you realize is moving this data and storing it is very expensive. What then must happen is to keep costs manageable you have to limit when they are on.

That SOP for body camera use is different from department to department. In some departments they only use them at traffic stops, in others they have different times it's on. Simply leaving them on all the time isn't feasible because of the costs associated with it when you start extrapolating that cost for each officer out over 365 days a year. If what has been said here is true, they were still in their, car that could have been why they weren't on. Many departments to fight the issue of the data costs have the cameras turn on automatically when they leave the vehicle. If they are still in the vehicle the assumption in the in car dash cam can handle the rest of the recording.

Something else to consider are the privacy issues around them. These are government employees recording things. While out in the street they are freely allowed to record as there is no expectation of privacy, but what happens if they leave it on when they enter a residence or a private business? These things are real issues they are still trying to deal with.

Don't confuse my explanation here about body cameras, with any sort of stance on this particular instance. I am in a LE industry and so I am familiar with this issue and wanted to add some thought onto the idea of "why wouldn't they be on?".

[*michaelsean*]

(07-18-2017, 09:50 AM)Au165 Wrote: So it's actually a really complex issue the LE community has been trying to navigate for a while now. So a couple things to consider.

One major issue is the amount of data these things consume. People want high definition video from these things which means it is a large amount of data. They want the data to be inaccessible to the officers which means it has to be moved up to a cloud server somewhere. They want it to be kept for an insanely long amount of time to go back and reference. When you consider these  things what you realize is moving this data and storing it is very expensive. What then must happen is to keep costs manageable you have to limit when they are on.

That SOP for body camera use is different from department to department. In some departments they only use them at traffic stops, in others they have different times it's on. Simply leaving them on all the time isn't feasible because of the costs associated with it when you start extrapolating that cost for each officer out over 365 days a year. If what has been said was they were still in their car that could have been why they weren't on. Some departments to fight the issue of the data costs have the cameras turn on automatically when they leave the vehicle.

Something else to consider are the privacy issues around them. These are government employees recording things. While out in the street they are freely allowed to record as there is no expectation of privacy, but what happens if they leave it on when they enter a residence or a private business? These things are real issues they are still trying to deal with.

Don't confuse my explanation here about body cameras, with any sort of stance on this particular instance. I am in a LE industry and so I am familiar with this issue and wanted to add some thought onto the idea of "why wouldn't they be on?".

I wrote that before I noticed that they hadn't even exited the car.  I wouldn't expect them to have them on in the car.

[Au165]

(07-18-2017, 09:54 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I wrote that before I noticed that they hadn't even exited the car.  I wouldn't expect them to have them on in the car.

Yea not so much pointed at you, I know I quoted you though. It could have been many others in this thread eventually I am sure. It is a big issue police have been trying to figure out for a while now. Most, and I am serious, like having them. They get accused often of stealing or roughing people up and they like the evidence backing them up.

[GMDino]

(07-18-2017, 09:50 AM)Au165 Wrote: So it's actually a really complex issue the LE community has been trying to navigate for a while now. So a couple things to consider.

One major issue is the amount of data these things consume. People want high definition video from these things which means it is a large amount of data. They want the data to be inaccessible to the officers which means it has to be moved up to a cloud server somewhere. They want it to be kept for an insanely long amount of time to go back and reference. When you consider these  things what you realize is moving this data and storing it is very expensive. What then must happen is to keep costs manageable you have to limit when they are on.

That SOP for body camera use is different from department to department. In some departments they only use them at traffic stops, in others they have different times it's on. Simply leaving them on all the time isn't feasible because of the costs associated with it when you start extrapolating that cost for each officer out over 365 days a year. If what has been said here is true, they were still in their, car that could have been why they weren't on. Many departments to fight the issue of the data costs have the cameras turn on automatically when they leave the vehicle. If they are still in the vehicle the assumption in the in car dash cam can handle the rest of the recording.

Something else to consider are the privacy issues around them. These are government employees recording things. While out in the street they are freely allowed to record as there is no expectation of privacy, but what happens if they leave it on when they enter a residence or a private business? These things are real issues they are still trying to deal with.

Don't confuse my explanation here about body cameras, with any sort of stance on this particular instance. I am in a LE industry and so I am familiar with this issue and wanted to add some thought onto the idea of "why wouldn't they be on?".

I have heard about the storage and costs.  The gopro 5 with a 64g card can hold about eight hours of HD video.  Couldn't there be a way to have an industrial one that is protected so only certain people can review/erase the video?

Just spitballing.

The other good thing is that costs of storage keep coming down even as more officers are using the cameras.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-18-2017, 09:59 AM)Au165 Wrote: Yea not so much pointed at you, I know I quoted you though. It could have been many others in this thread eventually I am sure. It is a big issue police have been trying to figure out for a while now. Most, and I am serious, like having them. They get accused often of stealing or roughing people up and they like the evidence backing them up.

I know, but it was a chance for me to correct what I said.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-17-2017, 04:24 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Yeah the story is pretty weird. The officer has been identified as Mohamed Noor (probably affiliated with ISIS (I'm kidding)) and he apparently shot over his partner while still sitting in the passenger seat of their cruiser. Wtf???? What police department is that taught in?

Not a one, I can assure you.  The fact that the officers were sitting in their vehicle while having this discussion exemplifies the fact that they considered themselves to be in a situation in which the potential for violence was non-existent.  Sitting in a car seat is a horrible tactical position to be in.  This would also explain why the body cameras were not on, as the idea of engaging in a behavior that would need to be documented was apparently remote.  This leads to the shooting itself.  The only way this shooting could be explained as anything other than a horrific blunder would be if this woman suddenly brandished a weapon and attacked the seated officers.  Of course, the scenario does not easily (or at all) lend itself to believing such a thing occurred.  You really have to wonder about this officer and his judgment.

Quote:He also apperently has a pending federal complaint against him from another woman.

This is a real no win scenario for this department.  If nothing happens to this officer you get the standard refrain of officers acting with impunity and the trope of the gang in blue.  If they go after this guy you'll get a, unfortunately not insignificant, number of people claiming the only reason they didn't protect him, as "they always do", is that he's a black immigrant and therefore expendable.  Write it down now, you will absolutely see an article claiming exactly that on HuffPo or Vox if it goes down that way.  Either way this plays out the department is going to be put through the wringer.

[Millhouse]

Here is the CNN link to story too: http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/18/us/minneapolis-woman-shooting-what-we-know/index.html

Apparently the victim called 911 to report a possible sexual assault in an alley near her home. Didnt report a shooting or someone brandishing a gun though.

I dont know, but this is manslaughter no matter how it can be spun. And seeing this is another unnecessary death at the hands of a Minneapolis cop in the last year or so, maybe they should consider changing their trigger happy training methods.

[Au165]

(07-18-2017, 10:00 AM)GMDino Wrote: I have heard about the storage and costs.  The gopro 5 with a 64g card can hold about eight hours of HD video.  Couldn't there be a way to have an industrial one that is protected so only certain people can review/erase the video?

Just spitballing.

The other good thing is that costs of storage keep coming down even as more officers are using the cameras.

The issue with this idea is the cameras can be "lost" if the storage is local. They tried storing them in hard drives in the trunks of cars originally, but there were major issues there as far as chain of custody and such. The industry has basically come to the agreement that cloud based storage is the best way to do it. The issue they still struggle with is costs to transmit and store. Think how much data streaming a video in HD from Netflix takes. Now think about that 12ish hours a day for hundreds of officers in some departments.

I'll put this in perspective of how lucrative the transmission (don't underestimate this part) and storage of video is. Taser, one of the biggest companies in the law enforcement industry, completely pivoted their business. While they still sell Tasers they renamed themselves Axon and their focus is in the body camera field. To take it one step further they are giving away the cameras, but making all their money in the transmission and storage fees they are charging police agencies.

Going forward the biggest cost to police departments won't be guns, cars, or officers it will be transmitting and storing all of the video. With requirements to keep the video growing longer and longer, the amount of storage need will explode exponentially over the next five years.

[Au165]

(07-18-2017, 12:02 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Here is the CNN link to story too: http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/18/us/minneapolis-woman-shooting-what-we-know/index.html

Apparently the victim called 911 to report a possible sexual assault in an alley near her home. Didnt report a shooting or someone brandishing a gun though.

I dont know, but this is manslaughter no matter how it can be spun. And seeing this is another unnecessary death at the hands of a Minneapolis cop in the last year or so, maybe they should consider changing their trigger happy training methods.

You don't rise to the occasion you fall back on your training. Unfortunately police aren't trained enough because of budgetary issues. Departments would love to train constantly, but the issue is that they have to pay the officer being trained and the officer who is working his shift while he is being trained. They attempt to get by with as much training as they can afford to do, but unless there is a massive influx of money into police agencies across the country the training side will always suffer.

[Matt_Crimson]

(07-18-2017, 09:54 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I wrote that before I noticed that they hadn't even exited the car.  I wouldn't expect them to have them on in the car.

According to the Minneapolis BWC (Body Worn Camera) policy, even if they didn't turn them on cause they were in the car they still have a problem of not following procedure. 

 

Quote: 1.    Activation Required

a. When safe to do so, officers shall manually activate the BWC during the following situation 

·       Traffic stops. 
·       Suspicious Person stops. 
·       Suspicious Vehicle stops. 
·       Any vehicular response requiring emergency driving as defined by MPD P/P 7-402, or emergency response as defined by MPD P/P 7-403. 
·       Vehicle pursuits. 
·       Work-related transports not involving a ride-along or another City employee in their official capacity as a City employee. 
·       Any search, including but not limited to searches of vehicles, persons, and buildings.
·       Any contact involving criminal activity.

·       Any contact involving physical or verbal confrontations.
·       Any contact that is, or becomes adversarial. 
·       When advising a person of their Miranda rights. 
·       When ordered to by a supervisor. 
·       Prior to any use of force. If a BWC is not activated prior to a use of force, it shall be activated as soon as it is safe to do so. 
·       Any tactical entry or forced entry into a building, unless a supervisor has determined in advance that the video or audio data could result in the disclosure of operational or tactical information that would compromise the effectiveness of future actions or jeopardize officer safety. 
 
b. Activation shall occur as soon as possible, but before any citizen contact. 
 
i. If a situation changes to require activation, the officer shall immediately activate the BWC as soon as it is safe to do so. 
 
c. All strip searches shall be recorded by at least one person present during the entirety of the strip search, including all pre-search instructions provided to the person being searched. 
 
i. The camera shall be positioned to ensure that only audio data is collected and that the person being searched is not captured on video. 
 
d. If there is a failure to activate the BWC in any of the above situations, the Officer shall document the reasons for the failure in the Officer’s report or supplement. 
 
i. If a report is not prepared, the reasons for the failure to activate shall be documented via added remarks in Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD). 

They were called about a possible sexual assault, arrived on scene without ever getting out of their car, saw a defenseless woman and somehow thought that she was enough of a danger that the officer in the passenger seat should shoot and kill her, and in order to do this he had to grab his gun out of his holster while still seated and then point the gun across the vehicle and fire across his partner to stop her. I don't get this at all. Even though the officer didn't turn on his camera before discharging his weapon, the policy clearly states that after an officer uses force they are required to turn on their cameras immediately after the fact. These officers didn't turn on their cameras at any point according to reports. I mean this just does not look good at all. Australian news paper sums it up pretty well.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-18-2017, 04:36 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: According to the Minneapolis BWC (Body Worn Camera) policy, even if they didn't turn them on cause they were in the car they still have a problem of not following procedure. 

 

They were called about a possible sexual assault, arrived on scene without ever getting out of their car, saw a defenseless woman and somehow thought that she was enough of a danger that the officer in the passenger seat should shoot and kill her, and in order to do this he had to grab his gun out of his holster while still seated and then point the gun across the vehicle and fire across his partner to stop her. I don't get this at all. Even though the officer didn't turn on his camera before discharging his weapon, the policy clearly states that after an officer uses force they are required to turn on their cameras immediately after the fact. These officers didn't turn on their cameras at any point according to reports. I mean this just does not look good at all. Australian news paper sums it up pretty well.

Playing Devil's Advocate (because this seems like the second police shooting up there that looks like murder, so emphasis on Devil). If you shoot someone dead, your first thought probably isn't "oh, I should turn on my body camera", it HOPEFULLY should be "****! Oh ****, I just killed a human being" because that's generally what someone with a soul, who doesn't enjoy killing people, would think about killing someone who wasn't actively trying to kill them.

[Matt_Crimson]

(07-18-2017, 05:29 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Playing Devil's Advocate (because this seems like the second police shooting up there that looks like murder, so emphasis on Devil). If you shoot someone dead, your first thought probably isn't "oh, I should turn on my body camera", it HOPEFULLY should be "****! Oh ****, I just killed a human being" because that's generally what someone with a soul, who doesn't enjoy killing people, would think about killing someone who wasn't actively trying to kill them.

It didn't have to be his first thought. It wasn't his thought at all. Plus there was 2 police officers. They can't both give her CPR at the same time. She was shot once in the stomach, so death was not immediately apparent.

[Au165]

(07-18-2017, 05:44 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: It didn't have to be his first thought. It wasn't his thought at all. Plus there was 2 police officers. They can't both give her CPR at the same time. She was shot once in the stomach, so death was not immediately apparent.

As I said before, SOPS are very large and training isn't nearly what it should be. It's an institutional issue across almost all departments across the country. One that can only be overcome with a large influx of money for training.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-18-2017, 05:44 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: It didn't have to be his first thought. It wasn't his thought at all. Plus there was 2 police officers. They can't both give her CPR at the same time. She was shot once in the stomach, so death was not immediately apparent.

Yeah, don't get me wrong. From everything I heard, it sounds like the police officer is guilty. I was just saying, people don't always act rationally after taking a human life. Sorta related/unrelated... if you ever take a tour of a Civil War battlefield, they will talk about how they found muskets with like 6 sets of powder/balls jammed down the barrel, from where the person forgot to put a firing cap on, pulled the trigger (which did nothing), then proceeded to reload and not put the firing cap on yet again.

He seems guilty, but I am not going to point to what I highlighted in your previous post as evidence towards it.

[Matt_Crimson]

(07-18-2017, 05:51 PM)Au165 Wrote: As I said before, SOPS are very large and training isn't nearly what it should be. It's an institutional issue across almost all departments across the country. One that can only be overcome with a large influx of money for training.

I was watching an episode of a live cop show yesterday and there was a white cop that had 15 years experience that was dealing with a car full of black guys that were acting suspicious and reaching around. This cop didn't reach for his gun once and kept calm the entire time while asking them questions and repeatedly telling them to refrain from reaching around inside the car Everyone got out of the incident without a scratch, After watching that I was thinking "Man the experience definitely shows.... if this had been a younger cop things definitely would have went south real fast".
   

Quote:TheLeonardLeap

Playing Devil's Advocate (because this seems like the second police shooting up there that looks like murder, so emphasis on Devil). If you shoot someone dead, your first thought probably isn't "oh, I should turn on my body camera", it HOPEFULLY should be "****! Oh ****, I just killed a human being" because that's generally what someone with a soul, who doesn't enjoy killing people, would think about killing someone who wasn't actively trying to kill them.

I agree, thought process can be affected after taking a human life, definitely. But from my perspective it's also like... well.... at what point was this guy acting rationally in the first place? I get that you might freak out after shooting someone, but it seems like this guy had already lost his rationality before he even shot her. I mean unless there's something REALLY bad that she did, I don't see why he would have a reason to act the way he did when they arrived on the scene.

I live in Minnesota, about 20 minutes from Minneapolis and about 35 minutes from St Paul (where the Philando Castile shooting happened) so these stories are obviously pretty big where I am. I was stopped by a cop about 5 months ago speeding  and the cop asked for my insurance, so I reached for it in my glove compartment but didn't find it, so I then started reaching around in my vehicle not even thinking about the fact that a cop was standing right there. I wasn't scared of the cop, but thinking back to that I'm kind of like "man that was pretty dumb I could have gotten shot for not being more careful about reaching around". It's sad those are the kinds of thoughts that pop into my head now.