Justine Damond: Australian PM calls shooting 'inexplicable'


Recommended Posts

Quote

Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull has said he will seek answers from US authorities over the "inexplicable" death of a woman shot by a policeman.

 

Justine Damond, originally from Sydney, was killed in Minneapolis after calling police to report a possible crime.

 

The incident is under investigation by US authorities, who say they cannot compel the officer to give a statement.

 

Mr Turnbull said his government is determined to learn what "went tragically wrong".

 

"How can a woman out in the street in her pyjamas seeking assistance be shot like that?" he said on the local Nine network on Wednesday.

 

"It is a shocking killing, and yes, we are demanding answers on behalf of her family."

 

US media reported that Ms Damond, 40, was dressed in her pyjamas and had approached the driver's side door of a police car when she was shot on Saturday.

 

Officer Mohamed Noor, who was sitting in the passenger seat, fired his weapon across his partner and through the driver's door, striking Ms Damond in the abdomen.

 

Every police officer and squad car in Minneapolis is equipped with cameras, but the incident was not recorded.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-40651470

 

 

I do hope this cop will be charged with murder over this...

14 minutes ago, DocM said:

Ofc. Noor is a Somali immigrant, who has 2 open citizen complaints. 

Wow we finally found out how to get DocM to criticize a cop

  • Like 7
34 minutes ago, TPreston said:

Wow we finally found out how to get DocM to criticize a cop

 

I still think we need to hear more; was she being belligetant, reach into the car to grab his partners weapon (or appear to do so from his position) etc., but absent those the shot selection alone put his partner at high risk. 

 

Also; was the weapon department issued or meet that safety standard? Was there a weapon safety standard? If applicable, was he carrying/displaying his weapon in Condition 0*? 

 

These can set up the conditions where a warning via a drawn firearm turns into an accidental discharge.

 

*magazine inserted (if a semi-auto), round chambered, safety off/(alt: hammer back)

4 hours ago, DocM said:

I still think we need to hear more; was she being belligetant, reach into the car to grab his partners weapon (or appear to do so from his position) etc., but absent those the shot selection alone put his partner at high risk. 

 

The victim was the one who called the cops to report a suspected sexual assault behind her home. She was gunned down when she approached the cops to talk to them about her report.  Why on Earth would she be belligerent when SHE is the one who called them?

 

Why is the cop refusing to make a statement?

Why were their body cameras off?

Why was the car camera off?

Has the other cop made a statement?

2 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

The victim was the one who called the cops to report a suspected sexual assault behind her home. She was gunned down when she approached the cops to talk to them about her report.  Why on Earth would she be belligerent when SHE is the one who called them?

 

Why is the cop refusing to make a statement?

Because we have a constitutional right not to, and we are informed of this when arrested. It's called the Miranda warning. A wise person clams up until their attorney arrives, and they are provided one free if they don't have one. That attorney should be there for any interviews.

 

Quote

Why were their body cameras off?

Good question, and it sounds like a violation of protocol not to turn them on as or before arriving on the scene.

 

Quote

Why was the car camera off?

Has the other cop made a statement?

It doesn't say it was off just that it didn't record the incident. The typical dash mounted, front facing camera will record about 60-70° either side of straight ahead, not the >100° to either side needed to see what's happening at the side windows.

1 minute ago, DocM said:

Because we have a constitutional right not to, and we are informed of this when arrested. It's called the Miranda warning. 

Yes, and how many innocent people don't make one?

 

1 minute ago, DocM said:

 

Good question, and it sounds like a violation of protocol not to turn them on as or before arriving on the scene.

 

It doesn't say it was off just that it didn't record the incident. The typical dash mounted, front facing camera will record about 60-70° either side of straight ahead, not the >100° to either side needed to see what's happening at the side windows.

At the very least, there should be audio, right?

3 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Yes, and how many innocent people don't make one?

All the smart ones, especially cops in a PR heavy incident. 

 

Quote

At the very least, there should be audio, right?

Audio is open to interpretation, and when the poo flies is too often just yelling and cursing. Not terribly useful.

I've defended a lot of police shootings in the U.S in the past, due to areas they're operating in... people they're dealing with.. and 99% of the time it's justified when we see footage of the offender going to draw etc, but hey lets riot anyway.


This but, I have no way of defending at all from every piece of evidence we've been given I have no idea how he hasn't been arrested yet. I hope this is getting as much news time as it is Australia and doesn't vanish from the U.S news system just because its a white woman if it's even getting air time to begin with.

10 hours ago, Mirumir said:

Rule #1, when in the U.S., do NOT try to run and scream as you're approaching a police car.

You're assuming that's what happened. All we know is she approached the driver's side of the police car when she was gunned down.

Been hearing about this incident on the news the last couple days, this is such a bizarre thing. I really hope we figure out just what was going on mostly because I just don't understand why this happened.

This story has a lot of questions.  Devil's advocate for the cop,  if she called to report a sexual assault in progress and the cops showed up it would have been highly unlikely for her to walk outside and go talk to the cops on her own, while the "suspect" was still out there.  The cops would have just gone to her or talked with her via the telephone, so why was she outside?  I think it's probable that someone, either the dispatcher or one of the cops via the dispatcher asked her to step outside, which would be why she only had on pajamas as that's the easiest article of clothing most people put on before stepping out.

 

I'm troubled by the fact they said she called twice, with the second call being 8 minutes after the first.  I have no idea of the call volume the PD was experiencing at the time, but it seems troubling that they possibly only sent one unit to an active sexual assault and it took them 8 minutes after the initial call to get there.  Did they not take it seriously or not take her seriously?

 

The fact that the "threat" was closest to the driver, but yet he never shot and assuming as a fact he never pulled his gun, what partner would shoot across his own, without first warning him or telling him to drive off.  I've said to a friend before, you'll never beat a scary person out of the holster.  The few details we have about this story so far appears to indicate that the officer was scary and it cost a woman her life.

 

As to him having 2 open complaints, without knowing the specific details of those complaints, they mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.  They could be serious complaints or they could be something as minor as a citizen complaining because they saw him litter once.  I wouldn't focus to much on them until they actually indicate what the complaints are.

1 minute ago, Nefarious Trigger said:

So let's hope they don't end up hiding behind their "constitutional right".

It only applies if you are accused of a crime, not for a witness.  There are instances when a witness can be compelled to speak.  Only a suspect or accused can't be compelled to speak.

4 minutes ago, macrosslover said:

It only applies if you are accused of a crime, not for a witness.  There are instances when a witness can be compelled to speak.  Only a suspect or accused can't be compelled to speak.

I feel that as a police officer you should be held to a higher standard - so there's that.  But also, if someone shoots the person who asks for help - and no reason is given why, and their personal recording equipment is off - and no reason is given why, and their vehicle recording system is off - and no reason if given why... It may be a "constitutional right" to choose to not comment, but it also speaks volumes.

 

Any other job "Why didn't you follow procedure and why were your recording devices disabled" would be an acceptable mandatory question.

59 minutes ago, Nefarious Trigger said:

I feel that as a police officer you should be held to a higher standard - so there's that.  But also, if someone shoots the person who asks for help - and no reason is given why, and their personal recording equipment is off - and no reason is given why, and their vehicle recording system is off - and no reason if given why... It may be a "constitutional right" to choose to not comment, but it also speaks volumes.

 

Any other job "Why didn't you follow procedure and why were your recording devices disabled" would be an acceptable mandatory question.

If everybody else can exercise their right to remain silent without an attorney, but police can't, then that's not fair or equal at all.  As to the recording equipment not being on, that's not surprising or done with ill-intent I would say.  The dash cam wouldn't even be activated if they never turned on their lights and sirens, it doesn't run all the time. 

 

Same thing with the body cameras, there is no system out there that runs 24/7.  It would drain the battery and take up too much storage.  There are some that activate when an officer turns on their car's emergency lights, but the overwhelming majority require the officer to manually activate.  Most officers don't turn them on until they are "on" the call, which is usually indicated by them getting out of the car.  As they had not exited their vehicle yet, even if they were talking to her, they probably felt they were still not "on the call". 

 

As I highlighted earlier, since their response time was at least 8 minutes or more to the call, they unlikely ran lights and sirens to the call.  After he shot her and his partner probably was like WTF just happened, I can assure you the last thing on their minds was turn on the camera.  All indications are they immediately began to give her first aid.

 

42 minutes ago, macrosslover said:

As I highlighted earlier, since their response time was at least 8 minutes or more to the call, they unlikely ran lights and sirens to the call.  After he shot her and his partner probably was like WTF just happened, I can assure you the last thing on their minds was turn on the camera.  All indications are they immediately began to give her first aid.

I'm surprised the cop driving wasn't injured by the gun being fired what must have been only inches from his face...

 

Seriously, who the hell DOES that? It's a massive no no!

1 hour ago, macrosslover said:

If everybody else can exercise their right to remain silent without an attorney, but police can't, then that's not fair or equal at all.

###### fair or equal.  There's so much wrong with this story that he should be compelled to speak just on that alone.  Someone is dead and it looks a LOT like it's his doing - if he chooses to not clear it up, then he's damning himself.

8 minutes ago, Nefarious Trigger said:

###### fair or equal.  There's so much wrong with this story that he should be compelled to speak just on that alone.  Someone is dead and it looks a LOT like it's his doing - if he chooses to not clear it up, then he's damning himself.

If he won't talk, then he should face a first degree murder charge.  Hell, he should be facing a murder charge anyway, but without offering any testimony then it should be the maximum charge possible.

 

  • Like 2
On 7/19/2017 at 10:50 AM, Vandalsquad said:

I hope this is getting as much news time as it is Australia and doesn't vanish from the U.S news system just because its a white woman if it's even getting air time to begin with.

Huh? It's getting a lot of air time and will continue to do so because it is a white woman. It won't get the air time it's getting in Australia because police shooting and gun shootings in general happen all the time here. Hopefully, at some point, the public will finally buy enough guns here so this is not a problem anymore.

14 hours ago, oldtimefighter said:

Huh? It's getting a lot of air time and will continue to do so because it is a white woman. It won't get the air time it's getting in Australia because police shooting and gun shootings in general happen all the time here. Hopefully, at some point, the public will finally buy enough guns here so this is not a problem anymore.

What utter nonsense!

Edited by Nefarious Trigger
2 hours ago, Nefarious Trigger said:

What utter nonsense!

Damn, I can't even fool people all the way in the UK. After fact checking my last comment...

 

The story hasn't been getting any air time at all. No one cares about a white woman gunned down in the street. Who knew?

It has been even getting less air time in Australia. We all know they shun citizens who move to the US.

What gun violence in the US?

Americans will never feel they have bought enough guns. Ridiculousness! Sorry gun lobby! My bad...

3 minutes ago, oldtimefighter said:

Damn, I can't even fool people all the way in the UK. After fact checking my last comment...

 

The story hasn't been getting any air time at all. No one cares about a white woman gunned down in the street. Who knew?

It has been even getting less air time in Australia. We all know they shun citizens who move to the US.

What gun violence in the US?

Americans will never feel they have bought enough guns. Ridiculousness! Sorry gun lobby! My bad...

The nonsense was directed towards your comment that more guns will solve the problems.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!