TexasCHLforum.com

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.

srothstein wrote:

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.

DEB wrote:

rotor wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

rotor wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

mojo84 wrote:This article gives some details on the shooter and the lady shot. http://www.news.com.au/world/north-amer ... 8f4bc7df91

Sounds like Mohamed felt it was his duty to kill the unclean infidel?

You heard it here first!

Please don't go down this path. There is no reason to believe that this is a hate crime situation.

Why not? It is what it is.

BTW, "hate" has become, IMO, the most selfish, self-serving, used and over abused word in the English language. For instance, I really hate gophers, moles, fire ants and east Texas' summers. Does that make me a racist, bigoted "hater"?

No, but your writing makes you sound like a racist. We need to let this play out before jumping to conclusions that this is a racial issue.

Racist? Racial issue? Where did Old Gringo say anything about race? Muslim is not a race, it is a religion. It would be like saying Baptist means White. Sounds to me that you are the one preoccupied with race.

bblhd672 wrote:

Excaliber wrote:New details are coming out. Apparently the lawyer who told Noor not to speak to investigators forgot to mention talking to Noor's friends. What he allegedly said to them can be found here.

Playing all 3 cards: race, religion and immigrant.

Another killer cop likely to get away with gunning down an innocent woman

baseballguy2001 wrote:Now, it's worse. The LEO who did the shooting is refusing to be interviewed. Isn't that nice? The driver of the squad was interviewed --

"Officer Harrity indicated that he was startled by a loud sound near the squad. Immediately afterward Ruszczyk approached the driver's side window of the squad," said the Department of Public Safety, in a statement, which is investigating the shooting.

"Harrity indicated that Officer Noor discharged his weapon, striking Ruszczyk through the open driver’s side window."

Isn't that interesting. The driver also claims a white kid on a bicycle (18 - 25) witnessed the two officers performing CPR.

The passenger LEO shoots and kills a 911 caller, lawyers up, then refuses to be interviewed by the investigating agency. The article goes on to say the agency can't compel his testimony.

srothstein wrote:This is a very interesting case since no one is saying what happened yet. The story I just read (Police Magazine) makes it look less like an ND than deliberate shooting. The officer was in the passenger seat and he "reached over" to shoot her. No weapons at the scene but her cell phone was found where she dropped it, implying to me that she had the phone in her hand when shot.

The police have not released any other information and no one from the family is yelling yet other than not knowing what happened. Cameras not on are easy to understand, useless for images in this case anyway but audio might have helped. Car camera is used when red lights come on and this was not a stop like that. It can be turned on manually but that would be when they get out of the car and only if they thought something would happen in front of the car. Body cameras would usually get turned on when they exit the car to approach the suspect. They could have a policy of turning it on for any citizen contact but it would be highly unlikely. Most places would not turn on the camera just to take a report, which is what this call was.

This call could be an example of why using the body camera and the car camera for any citizen contact is a good idea, even if it is an expensive one. Storage costs for all of the data that would produce would be enormous, in addition to the cost of having an employee review the recordings to determine which get kept and which get deleted as unnecessary.