“Over the past two decades, hundreds of Minnesota law enforcement officers have been convicted of criminal offenses. Most were never disciplined by the state…. Records also show that scores of the convictions stemmed from off-duty misconduct — including brawls, stalking and domestic altercations — that raise questions about an officer’s temperament for a job that authorizes the use of force.” [Jennifer Bjorhus and MaryJo Webster, Minneapolis Star-Tribune]
5 Comments
And still the Minneapolis cop that shot a woman for nothing has not even been charged.
If you’re referring to the Australian woman who was shot, I’m somewhat amazed that the cop who shot her hasn’t faced any discipline.
He didn’t just shoot her, he endangered his partner to do it.
It was a two man squad. The shooter fired from the passenger seat through the drivers door.
That’s a very awkward shooting position. If he missed, he very easily could have hit his partner.
He fired his side arm right next to his partner’s head in an enclosed space. Possible permanent hearing damage.
Even aside from the risk of actually hitting his partner, the partner could have suffered powder burns.
You may have a larger point – but you don’t make it. The appearance of comparing hearing loss and powder burns to a murder is illogical and repellent.
Whose comparing them. I was piling them on, not comparing them.
But the larger point that you missed is that cops seem to get away with killing unarmed civilians fairly regularly, and this is largely the result of police unions making “officer safety” the paramount concern.
However, right or wrong and I would call it wrong, officers are more likely to get disciplined when misconduct results in other officers being injured or placed at risk or if the misconduct is directed at the department itself.
Here’s an officer who not only killed an unarmed innocent bystander, which should by itself be enough cost him is job and land him in prison, but he also violated another officer’s safety to do it.
I agree with you MattS. Perhaps it was said a bit awkwardly, but your essential point that not only the woman was shot and killed, but that the killer violated every policy and procedure as well as gun safety rules.
As the original post is about convicted officers still on the job, and SPO’s point that the officer hasn’t been charged, I was shocked to read an article that states on September 15, 2017:
Mr Noor has not been detained over the shooting and is yet to speak to authorities about what happened that night.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-15/justine-damond-shooting-union-boss-defends-officer-noor/8948260
This is a shooting that took place on July 15, 2017 and in two months, no one had spoken to the shooter?
Maybe the issue is not only convicted cops still on the payroll, but the fact that it is daggone hard if not impossible to get a conviction – especially if the officer doesn’t have to talk to authorities like a guy off the street would.