parabelum wrote:Yes, it's easy to say that for you bud. It wasn't your wife or mother or daughter that got to bleed out in some dark alley because of Mohamed's nervousness (he doesn't deserve the title of "officer").
You see, if I acted in similar manner over the years each time I was startled by a someone approaching my vehicle at night in a rough part of town, at a gas station etc. I'd be already in Huntsville long ago.
Restraint and professionalism. And the nerve to search this poor lady's home thereafter to probably search for something illicit in hopes to lessen this murder "incident", I again ask, was Mohammed's home searched?
My takeaway from this tragedy is to stay inside your home and wait for police to come to the door, much like you should stay in the vehicle after a traffic stop.
That along with the fact that PC killed her.
CHL since 2/2011
Glock 26, S&W 442, Ruger SP101 .357 3",
S&W M&P 40, Remington 870 Express 12 ga 18"
parabelum wrote:Yes, it's easy to say that for you bud. It wasn't your wife or mother or daughter that got to bleed out in some dark alley because of Mohamed's nervousness (he doesn't deserve the title of "officer").
You see, if I acted in similar manner over the years each time I was startled by a someone approaching my vehicle at night in a rough part of town, at a gas station etc. I'd be already in Huntsville long ago.
Restraint and professionalism. And the nerve to search this poor lady's home thereafter to probably search for something illicit in hopes to lessen this murder "incident", I again ask, was Mohammed's home searched?
Apparently, there's more to this story than PC allows to be said.
talltex wrote:Place yourself, an ordinary citizen, in the officer's exact position. It's night--you and another male friend are sitting in his car in an unfamiliar place--a person you do not know walks toward your vehicle (forget that it is a middle-aged blonde female in her pajamas--if you can and presuming that stereotyping is not at all in play), WHAT possible scenario would allow you to feel justified in shooting the approaching person without any demonstrable provocation? If you had shot and killed her/him-- simply because you were nervous and afraid, you would be in jail, charged with murder or voluntary manslaughter.
I can think of several similar cases that meet this criterion that have been discussed on this very forum. In most cases, the board agrees that a shooting is not usually justified but there have been several where we agree that a shooting might be justified. In many case, the personal feeling of being threatened for various reasons may make the difference to the justification.
Say that a few other factors that have been reported in this case are included. Like the fact that there have been threats against police officers, including several recent cases of officers being attacked while responding to calls or while sitting in their cars. Then add in that the officers were investigating a report of a felony in progress, which tends to make them a little jumpier than usual. Now, while in a dark alley, someone slaps the side of their car and suddenly appears next tot he driver's window with no noise or warning. It might make a little difference tot he case.
Whether you were wearing a badge or not doesn't change the facts. The officer shot and killed someone without any demonstrable justification--period. Even more damning to me, is that the call they went to investigate, was a woman calling and reporting what sounded like a sexual assault taking place. I'd think that with that information, rather than viewing an approaching woman in pajamas as a threat, they would be much more likely to view her as a potential victim. His partner didn't draw his weapon and shoot, so he evidently didn't view her as a threat to his life.
I am not defending the officer, nor am I condemning him. I do not know what happened and how the shooting occurred. But you seem, in my opinion, to have come to the conclusion that because the shooting has not been justified to the media that there is no justification for it. This is simply not true. You also seem to have come to a conclusion about the second officer's behavior. I do not know that he had a weapon out or not. I also do not know if he saw the woman earlier than the passenger or at all. This is another point I think we need to wit until the investigation is complete to consider.
From what I have read of the case, I think MPD handled the case as best as they could. An officer was involved in a shooting where a complainant was killed. They immediately asked a different agency to investigate and have kept their hands off. I like the fact that it is a state police agency investigating because it is much harder to allege collusion between the local police and the local sheriff's office or prosecutor's office. And I like the fact that neither agency is releasing ANY real statements about what happened until the investigation is complete.
The problem with the last part is that it lets the public jump to conclusions about what happened, with very little facts. The media love to do this and are really helping in the effort to jump. They don't like being frustrated in their efforts to publish stories they want to publish.
My personal opinion that I have jumped to is that the officer is going to be charged with the Minnesota equivalent of involuntary manslaughter and be convicted of it. I like to hope there was some justification, but I keep stretching to come up with any. I also think people keep stretching to make the claim of murder. I honestly see it as a mistake and a tragedy but carrying a gun (with or without a badge) makes the punishment for those mistakes pretty drastic. Considering the consequences, that seems fair to me.
I agree with almost everything so well put by Steve.
We'll never know if Mohamed saw the cell phone in the victim's hand or not or whether or not he thought it might be a gun. Since he hasn't made an official statement and it has been published that the victim's cell phone was found on the ground he has that line to follow to allege mistaken justification. When his partner testifies whether or not he heard Mohamed yell GUN! before the shots may help to clear this up.
I agree that Steve's prediction of the outcome is most likely spot on. I also agree that the decision to immediately bring in state investigators was a very good one.
The one thing I don't think has been handled as well as possible is the total silence from the agency and the state investigators until the investigation is complete. See "Ferguson", which gave us "Hands up - don't shoot!" for how well that works out. After action analysis of that case by many thoughtful folks has indicated it is better to provide enough facts to make difficult for activists and the media to hijack the narrative and pillory the agency with a made up story that fills the vacuum.
Excaliber
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Jeff Cooper
I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of my posts should be construed as legal or professional advice.
Is anyone aware of any sort of body camera that automatically enables at the sound of gunfire? You know, for just this sort of occasion. The cameras they had have a buffer of what happened 30 seconds before the camera is "enabled", as long as someone manually turns the camera on. Why not have something that automatically enables at the sound of a gun shot?
If an officer is ambushed and fired upon, having "gunfire" turning on the body camera could be a useful feature. Obviously if the weapon is suppressed and far enough away, there is a possibility that it wouldn't pick it up.
Flightmare wrote:Is anyone aware of any sort of body camera that automatically enables at the sound of gunfire? You know, for just this sort of occasion. The cameras they had have a buffer of what happened 30 seconds before the camera is "enabled", as long as someone manually turns the camera on. Why not have something that automatically enables at the sound of a gun shot?
If an officer is ambushed and fired upon, having "gunfire" turning on the body camera could be a useful feature. Obviously if the weapon is suppressed and far enough away, there is a possibility that it wouldn't pick it up.
Just my 2 cents.
That's an idea that has real merit, and if mentioned to one of the bodycam manufacturers they might well pick it up.
Excaliber
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Jeff Cooper
I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of my posts should be construed as legal or professional advice.
Flightmare wrote:Is anyone aware of any sort of body camera that automatically enables at the sound of gunfire? You know, for just this sort of occasion. The cameras they had have a buffer of what happened 30 seconds before the camera is "enabled", as long as someone manually turns the camera on. Why not have something that automatically enables at the sound of a gun shot?
If an officer is ambushed and fired upon, having "gunfire" turning on the body camera could be a useful feature. Obviously if the weapon is suppressed and far enough away, there is a possibility that it wouldn't pick it up.
Just my 2 cents.
That's an idea that has real merit, and if mentioned to one of the bodycam manufacturers they might well pick it up.
It would be easy to implement. A friend bought a GoPro 5 the other day and it has 12 voice commands so I am sure they
could program gunshots into the firmware.
Flightmare wrote:Is anyone aware of any sort of body camera that automatically enables at the sound of gunfire? You know, for just this sort of occasion. The cameras they had have a buffer of what happened 30 seconds before the camera is "enabled", as long as someone manually turns the camera on. Why not have something that automatically enables at the sound of a gun shot?
If an officer is ambushed and fired upon, having "gunfire" turning on the body camera could be a useful feature. Obviously if the weapon is suppressed and far enough away, there is a possibility that it wouldn't pick it up.
Flightmare wrote:Is anyone aware of any sort of body camera that automatically enables at the sound of gunfire? You know, for just this sort of occasion. The cameras they had have a buffer of what happened 30 seconds before the camera is "enabled", as long as someone manually turns the camera on. Why not have something that automatically enables at the sound of a gun shot?
If an officer is ambushed and fired upon, having "gunfire" turning on the body camera could be a useful feature. Obviously if the weapon is suppressed and far enough away, there is a possibility that it wouldn't pick it up.
Just my 2 cents.
That's an idea that has real merit, and if mentioned to one of the bodycam manufacturers they might well pick it up.
I agree. I suggest you contact Axon at https://www.axon.com/ and suggest it to them. That is the company with the largest market presence in police body cameras (I think). It is the new name of what used to be Taser International for their other famous product. I am not sure, but I think Panasonic also sells body cameras. I know the have a patrol car camera system. It should be implemented there (in dash camera systems) also.
Interesting to note that after all these weeks, no conclusions have been reported by the Police. I guess the city and the Police are just hoping this goes away.
WTR wrote:Interesting to note that after all these weeks, no conclusions have been reported by the Police. I guess the city and the Police are just hoping this goes away.
Is anyone surprised?
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016. NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
WTR wrote:Interesting to note that after all these weeks, no conclusions have been reported by the Police. I guess the city and the Police are just hoping this goes away.
Is anyone surprised?
Unfortunately no, not really.
"I looked out under the sun and saw that the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong" Ecclesiastes 9:11
"The race may not always go to the swift or the battle to the strong, but that's the way the smart money bets" Damon Runyon
Flightmare wrote:Is anyone aware of any sort of body camera that automatically enables at the sound of gunfire? You know, for just this sort of occasion. The cameras they had have a buffer of what happened 30 seconds before the camera is "enabled", as long as someone manually turns the camera on. Why not have something that automatically enables at the sound of a gun shot?
If an officer is ambushed and fired upon, having "gunfire" turning on the body camera could be a useful feature. Obviously if the weapon is suppressed and far enough away, there is a possibility that it wouldn't pick it up.
Just my 2 cents.
A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights.
- Napoleon Bonaparte
PFC Paul E. Ison USMC 1916-2001
WTR wrote:Interesting to note that after all these weeks, no conclusions have been reported by the Police. I guess the city and the Police are just hoping this goes away.
I know that if I shot someone, conclusions about my culpability, would be determined much faster. And I don't have body cams, dash cams, etc. for them to use as evidence. JMHO
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second
