Posted on 07/18/2017 10:20:22 AM PDT by Cecily
Notice yesterday the media didnt even report on this story. Fox News ran a little clip of it and that is about it..local news here in LA not a peep..the second they heard the cop was a Jihadist Muslim they dropped it..I know why he shot her, because she was wearing Pajamas when she approached them..for Muslims, women wearing anything that reveals ANY skin is a no no in the Koran..he felt offended and shot her, all in Allah’s teachings
Because usually there is a cell phone video of some knucklehead cursing and fighting with the cop. So most people understand that physically fighting or tousling with a cop is dangerous and puts a cop in a situation that is scary.
I think FReepers are more scared of the federal police agencies because they have more money and power and nobody puts them in check. However, nobody is for excessive force of the local cop.
There is this crazy anti cop movement from the left the last few years, in case you haven’t noticed. A movement called Black Lives Matter and it has caused the death of several officers. It’s only natural conservatives and libertarians have a knee jerk reaction to defend local cops when the lying media and lying so-called civil rights groups start screaming about an “injustice” because we know it’s usually a big fat lie created to inflame.
I've heard it was a single shot and that it was multiple shots. Got a source?
That should tell you all you need to know.
Huh?
———Die-versity——
We die — these muzzies go free and live.
Such are our laws.
Cold blooded murder, plain and simple.
Hang him HIGH.
This is a quote from the Daily Mail article linked to this thread. Have you read the article?
On Khat?
Khat (Catha edulis) is a flowering shrub native to northeast Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. Individuals chew khat leaves because of the stimulant effects, which are similar to but less intense than those caused by using cocaine or methamphetamine.
Wow... I stand POLITICALLY CORRECTED. Enjoy your role as one of the multitude of ENFORCERS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.
I suspect that as well since neither office had their body cam on.
That's suspicious right from the get go.
If the partner is truly innocent, it might be in his best interests to volunteer for truth serum.
Yes, I understand the implications of that, but otherwise, there will ALWAYS be a cloud over him about what really happened and his part in it since his body cam was turned off too.
Considering that 1) the shooter had to fire in front of and directly across the abdomen of his partner in order to hit the victim through the driver’s side door of the police cruiser (missing his partner by millimeters), and 2) discharging a firearm in the passenger compartment of a car is a recipe for rendering the occupants stone deaf, then yeah...it’s little wonder the partner was stunned.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Methinks me partner and I would have a little chat behind a building were he to fire across me like that.
There is very little that justifies that action other than ACTUALLY seeing a weapon coming towards them AND then only after ‘warning’ the partner.
To jihadis, there is no such thing as sexual assault.
This will be a negligent discharge case, cop will claim he was undoing his seatbelt and the gun acccidently went off...can’t charge your first Somali muslim city cop with manslaughter over affirmative action hiring...
Well, according to the dept's policy, they didn't have to be switched on during an encounter like that:
Minneapolis’ policy is laid out over two pages and can be read here. In it, it says officers should turn on a camera when it’s safe to do under the following situations: traffic stops, suspicious person or vehicle stops, vehicle pursuits, when transporting someone, any searches, contact with criminal activity, a confrontation or anything that becomes adversarial, when reading someone their Miranda rights, when ordered by a supervisor, before using force and forced entry into a building.It goes on to say an officer can turn the camera on if they’re talking to a citizen and the officer thinks it’s appropriate or when they’re taking a statement and want to preserve the information.
The policy says the camera can be turned off when protecting accident scenes, monitoring traffic, helping drivers, protecting an undercover officer or informant, to save battery during a long incident, to talk to another officer in private, when ordered by a supervisor or sometimes when a victim or witness requests it.
The dept policy doesn't require the cops to turn their body cams on for such an encounter, therefore, that shouldn't be the main focus like it is.
The only, real, question left is what the heck was Noor thinking when he shot dead Ms. Damond.
Has it occurred to anyone that they may have been doing something wrong with the woman at the time all of this occurred. From a map of the events, she was a long ways from her home in pajamas. Something is real fishy here.
MURDER!
The body cams were not turned on because their policy stated they didn't need to be turned on. Yet, the mayor is out there "wondering" why they weren't on.
So he shot “through” the actual door? Not through the open window??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.