Who was Justine diamond
Executive summary
Justine Damond (often misidentified online as “Justine Diamond”) was an Australian‑born woman, a trained veterinarian turned spiritual healer and life coach, who was shot and killed in Minneapolis in July 2017 by police officer Mohamed Noor; her death sparked a high‑profile criminal prosecution, a $20 million city settlement with her family, and sustained public debate about policing and media framing [1] [2] [3]. The name “Justine Diamond” also belongs to several living professionals — a U.S. nonprofit finance director and a New Orleans herbalist among them — which has fueled confusion and viral misinformation on social platforms [4] [5] [6].
1. Who she was: biography and work
Born Justine Maia Ruszczyk in Sydney in 1977, she graduated from the University of Sydney as a veterinarian in 2002 and later moved toward spiritual healing, meditation coaching and life‑coaching work — roles captured in biographical reporting and compiled summaries of the case [1]. Reporting at the time described her as engaged to be married, active in her Minneapolis neighborhood, and someone who had called 911 the night she died after hearing a possible assault nearby [2].
2. The killing that made her a flashpoint
On July 15, 2017, Damond approached a Minneapolis police squad vehicle after calling 911; Officer Mohamed Noor shot her from the passenger side and she died — facts established in criminal charging documents and contemporaneous reporting that fueled a public outcry and a national conversation about police use of force [2]. Noor was charged and later tried for the shooting, an outcome that distinguished this case from many others in the era’s policing debates [2].
3. Legal aftermath and settlements — correcting viral claims
Contrary to viral posts that misnamed her “Justine Diamond” and overstated damages, the City of Minneapolis reached a $20 million settlement with Damond’s family — not the $55 million figure circulated on social media — a discrepancy identified and corrected by a USA Today fact check [3]. The fact check also noted how social posts sometimes emphasized racialized framings of the officer and the victim to score political points; those simplifications have at times obscured the complex legal and factual record [3].
4. How the name confusion spread and why it matters
“Justine Diamond” as a label is found in multiple, unrelated professional profiles — for example a seasoned nonprofit finance director listed on a HopOnACure site and a New Orleans herbalist featured by HerbRally — and the existence of living professionals with that name has amplified online misattribution and allowed bad actors or careless sharers to conflate identities [4] [5]. Fact‑checking outlets noted the viral posts’ errors and tied the misnaming to broader tendencies on social media to compress complex cases into quick, emotionally charged narratives [3].
5. Media framing, public reaction and political resonance
Damond’s death prompted memorials, rallies and political commentary; Minnesota elected officials and community activists used the case to critique police training and accountability, while police leadership publicly lamented the outcome and urged cooperation with investigations — a mélange of responses that reflects competing agendas: justice for a victim, institutional self‑defense by police, and partisan leverage in national debates about policing [1] [3]. Coverage ranged from sober courtroom reporting to sensational tabloid pieces, a spectrum that shaped public perception and sometimes magnified errors like the misnaming [7].
6. Limits of available reporting and what remains contested
Public sources converge on the core facts of Damond’s identity, killing, prosecution and the $20 million settlement, but reporting differs in emphasis and sometimes in tone; some tabloid accounts sensationalized details of the shooting while official and fact‑checking outlets focused on verified records and legal outcomes [2] [7] [3]. Where reporting is silent — for example about private family deliberations or internal police decision‑making beyond what's on the public record — this account does not speculate and relies on documented sources.