Justine Ruszczyk
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
|
|
|
 |
swoop42 
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
If the swathe of fictional police shows and true crime documentaries have taught me anything over the years it's that Police officers are well prepared to lie for another in order to protect them in these type of circumstances.
I believe neither had activated their body cams and without that footage available I'm just not prepared to blindly accept their version of events.
While people will focus on the availability of guns in the US and how that must impact the mindset of Police in that country if anyone has seen the excellent ABC documentary Trigger Point about the Australian police force (primarily Victorian? memory hazy) it covers how police shootings were becoming a frequent occurrence after it adopted American practices in it's training for armed confrontations.
Needless to say it was scrapped.
To me this goes to the heart of the problem and while I can accept the Police Officer didn't begin his career or start his working day looking to harm an innocent woman once you don that uniform you take on a serious responsibility within society, you're armed and taking a shoot first option is to easily arrived at in the US and shows a lack of or improper training to begin with.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
luvdids 
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Location: work
|
| Post subject: | |
|
 The forensic evidence proved it, I didn't need to be there lol.
And imagine my shock that his police partner backed up his story. That must be almost unheard of.... |
|
|
|
|
luvdids
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Location: work
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | Certainly if his side of the story is in dispute (i.e. that he believed he was acting in self-defence) and he shot her out of malice, then that would change things. But I do believe in sentences that appropriately weigh up extent of harm, intent and prospects of rehabilitation. Killing someone is a very grave act and ought to be treated so by courts, but five years is a long time to spend behind bars, and I doubt he poses any future danger to the community (particularly now that he is no longer employed in the police force).
Hard to draw any conclusions from the complaints and to be honest I'm not sure how common it is for a police officer to have one or more complaints against them. |
The self defence is certainly in dispute, since there was no evidence of her touching the car. There's a fair bit in between acting in self defence & out of malice IMO. I believe he was startled when she appeared at the window so he just shot her. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| luvdids wrote: | | David wrote: | Certainly if his side of the story is in dispute (i.e. that he believed he was acting in self-defence) and he shot her out of malice, then that would change things. But I do believe in sentences that appropriately weigh up extent of harm, intent and prospects of rehabilitation. Killing someone is a very grave act and ought to be treated so by courts, but five years is a long time to spend behind bars, and I doubt he poses any future danger to the community (particularly now that he is no longer employed in the police force).
Hard to draw any conclusions from the complaints and to be honest I'm not sure how common it is for a police officer to have one or more complaints against them. |
The self defence is certainly in dispute, since there was no evidence of her touching the car. There's a fair bit in between acting in self defence & out of malice IMO. I believe he was startled when she appeared at the window so he just shot her. |
i agree with this.
so no planning to kill Her, just a horrible reaction. IMO thats not a murder charge.
no evidence of her touching the car? of anything touching the car? they said they heard or felt a bump, not that She caused it.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| luvdids wrote: |
The forensic evidence proved it, I didn't need to be there lol.
And imagine my shock that his police partner backed up his story. That must be almost unheard of.... |
what exactly did the forensic evidence prove?
They both said She walked up to the car and was shot, they both said they felt/heard a knock to the car, my take on it was from another source, that bit there is hard to prove or disprove, nothing else is in dispute.
The only thing to agree on is the why, and i doubt we will ever really know the answer.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | Certainly if his side of the story is in dispute (i.e. that he believed he was acting in self-defence) and he shot her out of malice, then that would change things. But I do believe in sentences that appropriately weigh up extent of harm, intent and prospects of rehabilitation. Killing someone is a very grave act and ought to be treated so by courts, but five years is a long time to spend behind bars, and I doubt he poses any future danger to the community (particularly now that he is no longer employed in the police force).
Hard to draw any conclusions from the complaints and to be honest I'm not sure how common it is for a police officer to have one or more complaints against them. |
in this day and age i reckon it would be pretty common. People love to whinge, and nothing is ever anyone's fault.
I honestly cant see how anyone thinks this would have occurred intentionally, that there would be an intention to kill her, for what reason?
I do believe his story that he thought he was acting in self defence, or defence of his partner, quite frankly thats the logical explanation, unfortunately, he was mistaken and an innocent died. He has to live with that. And worse, so does Her family.
it all comes back to one thing. the fricken NRA
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| swoop42 wrote: | If the swathe of fictional police shows and true crime documentaries have taught me anything over the years it's that Police officers are well prepared to lie for another in order to protect them in these type of circumstances.
I believe neither had activated their body cams and without that footage available I'm just not prepared to blindly accept their version of events.
While people will focus on the availability of guns in the US and how that must impact the mindset of Police in that country if anyone has seen the excellent ABC documentary Trigger Point about the Australian police force (primarily Victorian? memory hazy) it covers how police shootings were becoming a frequent occurrence after it adopted American practices in it's training for armed confrontations.
Needless to say it was scrapped.
To me this goes to the heart of the problem and while I can accept the Police Officer didn't begin his career or start his working day looking to harm an innocent woman once you don that uniform you take on a serious responsibility within society, you're armed and taking a shoot first option is to easily arrived at in the US and shows a lack of or improper training to begin with. |
I watch all those shows too, and i certainly see where you are coming from. They have also taught me that forensics dont always tell the whole story. Really, who apart from the two cops that were there, really knows what happened?
The body cam thing is a damn shame. The second officer turned his on after the shooting, when they were trying to revive her. he stated that before hand it just seemed to be a routine call, and it wasnt necessary, which actually backs up their claim it just suddenly went bad. maybe they need to run continuously, im not sure what it takes to turn one on. I thought there was a rolling camera in the car too.
And i think your last paragraph hits it on the head. He panicked and fired and thats wrong, its also human. And now he has to live with that. Im just not sure what kind of sentence that deserves? He already has a life sentence of guilt.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
luvdids
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Location: work
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | luvdids wrote: |
The forensic evidence proved it, I didn't need to be there lol.
And imagine my shock that his police partner backed up his story. That must be almost unheard of.... |
what exactly did the forensic evidence prove?
They both said She walked up to the car and was shot, they both said they felt/heard a knock to the car, my take on it was from another source, that bit there is hard to prove or disprove, nothing else is in dispute.
The only thing to agree on is the why, and i doubt we will ever really know the answer. |
That she never touched the car.
It's starting to be Harambe all over again. Boo hoo, poor police officer who was scared of an unarmed woman in her pjs.
If you read the Minnesota definition of 3rd degree murder you'll see why he was guilty of it. It's posted on page 1. Their definition is different to the definition of murder in Australia so please stop going on about not setting out to kill her. That's irrelevant. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| luvdids wrote: | | Skids wrote: | | Pies4shaw wrote: | Guilty of 3rd degree murder and 2nd degree manslaughter.
Whatever that means. |
Minnesota 3rd degree murder.
Minnesota law originally defined third-degree murder solely as depraved-heart murder("without intent to effect the death of any person, caus[ing] the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life").[7][8] In 1987, an additional drug-related provision ("without intent to cause death, proximately caus[ing] the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II") was added to the definition of third-degree murder.[7][9] Up until the early 2000s, prosecutions under that provision were rare, but they began to rise in the 2010s. Some reports linked this increase in prosecutions to the opioid epidemic.[10]
Minnesota law also defines the crime of third-degree murder of an unborn child, with the same elements of depraved mind and lack of intent to kill distinguishing it from first- or second-degree murder of an unborn child.[11][12] Both third-degree murder and third-degree murder of an unborn child are punishable by a maximum of 25 years' imprisonment
And this .....
https://statelaws.findlaw.com/minnesota-law/minnesota-involuntary-manslaughter-law.html |
Doubt he was querying what 3rd degree murder is, more being guilty of BOTH murder & manslaughter. |
Yep. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| luvdids wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | luvdids wrote: |
The forensic evidence proved it, I didn't need to be there lol.
And imagine my shock that his police partner backed up his story. That must be almost unheard of.... |
what exactly did the forensic evidence prove?
They both said She walked up to the car and was shot, they both said they felt/heard a knock to the car, my take on it was from another source, that bit there is hard to prove or disprove, nothing else is in dispute.
The only thing to agree on is the why, and i doubt we will ever really know the answer. |
That she never touched the car.
It's starting to be Harambe all over again. Boo hoo, poor police officer who was scared of an unarmed woman in her pjs.
If you read the Minnesota definition of 3rd degree murder you'll see why he was guilty of it. It's posted on page 1. Their definition is different to the definition of murder in Australia so please stop going on about not setting out to kill her. That's irrelevant. |
he didnt say She touched the car
"Noor testified that a loud bang on his squad car made him fearful,''
The other officer said the same thing.
and what on earth does this have to do with Harambe? How is that situation in anyway relevant?
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | luvdids wrote: | | Skids wrote: | | Pies4shaw wrote: | Guilty of 3rd degree murder and 2nd degree manslaughter.
Whatever that means. |
Minnesota 3rd degree murder.
Minnesota law originally defined third-degree murder solely as depraved-heart murder("without intent to effect the death of any person, caus[ing] the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life").[7][8] In 1987, an additional drug-related provision ("without intent to cause death, proximately caus[ing] the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II") was added to the definition of third-degree murder.[7][9] Up until the early 2000s, prosecutions under that provision were rare, but they began to rise in the 2010s. Some reports linked this increase in prosecutions to the opioid epidemic.[10]
Minnesota law also defines the crime of third-degree murder of an unborn child, with the same elements of depraved mind and lack of intent to kill distinguishing it from first- or second-degree murder of an unborn child.[11][12] Both third-degree murder and third-degree murder of an unborn child are punishable by a maximum of 25 years' imprisonment
And this .....
https://statelaws.findlaw.com/minnesota-law/minnesota-involuntary-manslaughter-law.html |
Doubt he was querying what 3rd degree murder is, more being guilty of BOTH murder & manslaughter. |
Yep. |
I agree, I found that very strange that he could be charfed with 3 charges, 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder and 2nd degree (involuntary) manslaughter and get convicted of 2. US law is quite different to AUS law.
Both the 3rd degree murder and the 2nd degree manslaughter are defined by lack of premeditation or intent to kill.
I'll wait for the sentencing before forming an opinion whether justice has been done or not, but on the surface you have a woman dead who did nothing wrong and a policeman convicted of essentially being careless or reckless. Given the environment they were operating in, that's probably as close to an appropriate outcome that you can get.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
' “I fired one shot,” Mr. Noor said in court, according to The Star Tribune newspaper. “The threat was gone. She could have had a weapon.”
...
American police officers have wide discretion to use lethal force, and few are ever charged in on-duty shootings. Of those who stand trial, many are acquitted, though there have been recent exceptions in Illinois, Florida and Texas.
...
In Ms. Ruszczyk’s neighborhood, a safe, affluent area near the southwest corner of Minneapolis, the shooting has harmed relations with the police.
“People’s willingness to interact with police officers has taken a decline,” said Todd Schuman, who lives near the shooting scene and is part of group that called for Mr. Noor to be convicted. “I have two children here, and how I talk to them about their interactions with police officers is going to change as a result of this.”
...
Mr. Freeman, the prosecutor, said there were errors by the Minneapolis police and a state law enforcement agency in the early stages of the investigation. John Ruszczyk, Justine’s father, said Tuesday that he felt the conviction came “despite the active resistance” of some in law enforcement.'
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/us/minneapolis-police-noor-verdict.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
