Minneapolis Officer Mohamed Noor & Partner Are Lying. - Update

a reply to: Shamrock6

...They are hiding and covering up something.

Why you cannot grasp this is beyond any one persons comprehension, including my own.

originally posted by: Justso
a reply to: GusMcDangerthing

Don't buy your story-she shouldn't have been outside-Minneapolis is not Chicago but still-she should have stayed inside-common sense-that area is not crime free and she knew something wrong was happening.

One look at her family and you know they arn't middle class-Australians are not that trusting-you make them sound dumb-she knew where she lived.

The police know the truth but don't expect Mayor Betsy to cover for them. This is much more complicated than you think you know.

So once she saw a squad car, she still shouldn't have felt safe enough to go out and speak with the officers, and let them know why she called? Ridiculous. Of course she should have been safe to go outside, Chicago or not, the police were there!

Little did she know, it would actually be the police she should have feared most.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The officer needs to be arrested like anybody else would be when shooting someone and that death is ruled a homicide. We cannot allow for double standards as are presently being shown as the norm for Law Enforcement.

Having a badge does not mean you are incapable anymore of day to day human behavior. The officers intent is inconsequential to the fact that he and his partner broke every rule in the book already and as well is not talking in the follow up. If it was just a bad shot, and he is innocent, why not speak out about it and defend yourself?

Oh that's right, because he was raping someone in the Alley way with his partner and now if they are looking at life in prison or worse, if found out.

originally posted by: scubagravy
Us Australians are under the impression that Noor was giving Harritty a gobbie in the squad car, in the alley, she startled them just as Harrity was giving Noor the reach around.

Dirty pigs.

Leaders lead by example, America..... Get to the back of the line.

Guess they should swab Harritty's Tallywhacker for Noors dna while they're at the swabbing for gunshot residue.

a reply to: SR1TX

Too bad I already said I think they're framing the story to give Noor something to work with at trial so....you can take your BS and suck it right back down where it came from, chief. Framing the story to give Noor something to work with at trial is sort of the definition of a cover up.

Just because I don't buy the steaming pile of crap you've concocted and refuse to defend any time one of the giant holes in your story is pointed out doesn't mean I "cannot grasp" there's something being covered up. Particularly when, as I said, I've already said they're framing the story in a certain way.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Diabolical1972

I'll look into it, but this is sort of an ongoing discussion between SR1TX and myself concerning his lack of extraordinary proof to back up his extraordinary claim.

I don't have a theory...I don't know from where you got that idea.

As for Ms. Graham, I have found limited information on her, but did find a story that cited her family members as saying that she suffers from an unnamed mental illness. I'm not saying that negates her complaint against Noor, but it's a point worth considering if you're going to use Ms. Graham as a citation to bolster the OP's claims.

And from th is source:

However, Ms Graham’s neighbours of 30 years have chosen to defend the police officer. One woman said she “calls the police a lot”.

Another said: “Something could have happened, but I think if it did she probably exaggerated it”.

Things aren't looking good for Ms. Graham's credibility, at least in her claims as being 100% factually based.

I'll look into it a bit further, though, after lunch.

I'll bet Ms. Graham's claims are looking a little better for her now seeing how the accused just shot an unarmed woman in the process of reporting a crime, and killed her.

a reply to: Shamrock6

He has nothing to work with.


His body cam was turned off, as was the cars dash cam, and his partners Body cam. His gun was drawn, inside the car..another no no. He fired inside the cabin unexpectedly, another big no no. He has multiple pending investigations as well as now, a personal lawsuit for battery against a woman. His neighbors describe him as hostile, edgy, jumpy, and verbally abusive towards women.

Justine as well proceeded to tell dispatch she heard a sound behind the house still on the 2nd call. She was indicating by this response that she was inside the home still. Why else say it this way, do you believe she was at McDonalds saying this?

Your posts indicate you are out of touch with reality on this one and the mounting evidence against the officer you either outright ignore or dismiss. I have news for you. This is going to be used against him in a court of law as well one way or another. It's all part of the puzzle.

originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: SlapMonkey

The officer needs to be arrested like anybody else would be when shooting someone and that death is ruled a homicide. We cannot allow for double standards as are presently being shown as the norm for Law Enforcement.

I disagree, just like if a civilian were to mistakenly shoot their spouse, thinking that they were an intruder because they came home early from a vacation--the civilian would most likely not be arrested. Definitely detained and question, I'm sure, but not necessarily arrested.


This officer is being investigated and questioned, but at this point, there is apparently no reason to arrest him in the eyes of the investigators, who know much more than you and I combined.

Having a badge does not mean you are incapable anymore of day to day human behavior. The officers intent is inconsequential to the fact that he and his partner broke every rule in the book already...

Hold on...you know EVERY rule in the book? Do you have a link to said book? And speaking of links, you never did reply in your other thread to me with a link to the bodycam SOP that you claim to have extensively researched...do you have that link, still, too?

As far as breaking rules in "the book," intent matters there, too, because it either can be negligence, or criminal (or criminal negligence, if the state has that charge...not all do).

... and as well is not talking in the follow up. If it was just a bad shot, and he is innocent, why not speak out about it and defend yourself?

This has been addressed by other people in this thread, but if you don't understand the answer by now, you should really research the amount of times that innocent people's statements have been used and twisted in a way to obtain indictments or even guilty verdicts. A good rule of thumb for ANYONE under investigation is to remain silent and get a lawyer, no matter how innocent that you are. And remember, just because he's a cop doesn't mean that he's incapable of human behavior, such as not talking to investigators.

Oh that's right, because he was raping someone in the Alley way with his partner and now if they are looking at life in prison or worse, if found out.

You're bordering on asininity at this point with your persistence on pushing this theory of yours as fact.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yeah find one instance where a Husbands Wife or Wife's Husband's death was ruled a homicide and they were the perpetrators, but walked Scott free and decided not to talk to investigators and ask that they respect their privacy.

Sorry, it does not work that way in the real world for real citizens. There are people in jail right now facing manslaughter charges over BDSM games gone wrong, where the reasons of death provided are 100% plausible and an likely an accident given the activity...The people still go to jail.


There is no theory as to whether the officer killed Justine in cold blood. He absolutely did, and walked. - What is difficult to comprehend about this "Fact" for you?

He needs to be in Custody. Period.

originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: Shamrock6


His body cam was turned off, as was the cars dash cam, and his partners Body cam.

You still have yet to prove, at least that I've seen, that it is SOP to have bodycams turned on while sitting in a vehicle driving through an alley with zero verification that there is any sort of crime happening. Same with the vehicle cam, honestly, although it seems like it would have been a good idea to have that turned on...but possibly not necessary per SOP.

His gun was drawn, inside the car..another no no.

Honest question...do you have an SOP that states that an officer will never unholster his weapon while in a vehicle?

He fired inside the cabin unexpectedly, another big no no.

SOP that says that, if an officer perceives a threat, that they can not fire their weapon on a vehicle "unexpectedly?"

He has multiple pending investigations as well as now, a personal lawsuit for battery against a woman. His neighbors describe him as hostile, edgy, jumpy, and verbally abusive towards women.

And the woman who is charging him with battery has neighbors who back the officer and say that she calls the cops all of the time and that, if something did happen, she's probably exaggerating--and her own family members cited mental instability.

How come that hearsay is not accepted by you, but neighbors' descriptions of the officer is?

Your posts indicate you are out of touch with reality on this one and the mounting evidence against the officer you either outright ignore or dismiss. I have news for you. This is going to be used against him in a court of law as well one way or another. It's all part of the puzzle.

And your posts consistently indicate that you are ignorant to how evidence in a court of law works. Hearsay is inadmissible, and circumstantial evidence is flimsy at best, if entered into evidence at all. If prosecution uses your points as evidence, they will not get a conviction. Remember, there is that pesky (but necessary) qualification of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in order to find someone guilty, and your theory is enveloped in reasonable doubt at this point.

I know that I'm coming off harsh, but like I said in another comment concerning you (but not to you), extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and until that surfaces, all you have are extraordinary claims with, at best, flimsy circumstantial evidence. This doesn't mean that your scenario isn't possible, I just don't find it very probable.

a reply to: SR1TX

Uh...no champ, the one out of touch with reality here is you.

All I've done is blow holes in your crapfest of a theory as to what lead up to the shooting. At no point have I defended Noor. No matter how many times you try to claim I have defended him, it doesn't make it true, because it hasn't happened.

Not agreeing with you isn't defending Noor. It's no more, and no less, than not agreeing with you.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Hey look, an adult capable of rational thought. Perhaps you and I can engage and leave the kiddie table to clean up their juice.

You still have yet to prove, at least that I've seen, that it is SOP to have bodycams turned on while sitting in a vehicle driving through an alley with zero verification that there is any sort of crime happening. Same with the vehicle cam, honestly, although it seems like it would have been a good idea to have that turned on...but possibly not necessary per SOP.

Any body cam policy I'm familiar with dictates that cameras will be activated when there's a reasonable chance of public interaction in the course of duty. Failure to do so is against policy. It's not the crime of the century, but it's against policy. Beyond that, unless both officers were wearing head-mounted cameras, body cams likely wouldn't have shown anything. Body cams only show what they're pointed at, and if the body is looking forward with an arm across the body, all the camera will show is an arm. As for the dash cam, if the camera is linked to the emergency lights, it's not going to be on when the lights are off.

Honest question...do you have an SOP that states that an officer will never unholster his weapon while in a vehicle?

Honest answer - no, he will not have an SOP that says that (I'm sure you knew that though ). There's any number of videos that show officers firing from inside their vehicles.

SOP that says that, if an officer perceives a threat, that they can not fire their weapon on a vehicle "unexpectedly?"

See above.

How come that hearsay is not accepted by you, but neighbors' descriptions of the officer is?

Hearsay that fits the narrative is evidence, hearsay that doesn't fit is ignored and is part of the cover-up.

This doesn't mean that your scenario isn't possible, I just don't find it very probable.

As has been stated numerous times, it's "the only possible reason" for the shooting, and if you don't like it then you're just too busy defending Noor to accept the reality.

originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: SlapMonkey

There is no theory as to whether the officer killed Justine in cold blood. He absolutely did, and walked. - What is difficult to comprehend about this "Fact" for you?

This is where you fail to understand the law and intent--an accidental killing of a human being is not a crime. He claims that it was an accident/misidentification, and his partner seems to back it up. This, at this point, is not tantamount to a killing in "cold blood"--the use of that idiom is hyperbole at this point.

And he didn't "walk," as you put it, because the investigation is still ongoing, and there has been no declination to file charges against him yet.

You are getting so far ahead of yourself that I think one of you is watching the sun set and the other, the sun rise.

Comprehension on my behalf isn't the problem--I get your theory plain as day. But like I may have noted before, my decade of professional experience as both a paralegal and then working directly with federal investigative agents and AUSAs (my current job) tells me that you don't quite understand how the legal system works.

But I'm not going to keep bickering with you over this--you can disregard my knowledge and understanding as much as you want, but it doesn't change the fact that what you have here is a theory based on, at best, circumstantial evidence, and at worst, ideologically driven misunderstandings of how things work.

Regardless, I may continue reading the thread and following the case, but I think our one-on-one discussion concerning it has run its course.

Best Regards.

SM

a reply to: SlapMonkey

It is SOP to turn them on, when heading into any situation where danger is present. If you have your gun drawn already, windows down, you are in a dangerous situation, there is no other reason your weapon is out as an Officer unless its showtime.

Correct, you do not Unholster your weapon - ever - unless threatened with fear of your life being in danger. This is SOP. What was he otherwise doing? Showing it off? Cleaning it? Chilling like a gangster?

Officer Harrity on the discharge "It was completely unexpected" - "I was stunned" - "It is not yet known why Noor Opened fire"

It is not hearsay, the woman waging the lawsuit against Noor. The events she described actually took place. Given the amount of crime coming up in the area, I am not at all surprised that someone who probably has lived there a long time, is now using 911 more often to report activity. The Neighbors testimony of Noor can and will be used against him as a character witness in trial. The description is not of the crime, but his character, which is absolutely not hearsay, but I am sure you learned that difference in Law School, right?

Your last paragraph absolutely proves why Noor is going to prison. A woman slapping a cop car is not grounds for execution. It's the gallows for him.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

ha, it seems like they were up to no good, soliciting a prostitute is not out of the question either.

Either way, i doubt we'll find the bottom of this.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Her death was ruled a homicide. Intent matters not when you have shown negligence on the job.

People don't intend to get into an accident when drinking and driving, they are not intentionally out to kill someone, they are however, negligent for not following the Law and getting behind the wheel of a vehicle while intoxicated. That is why you get manslaughter charges.

In this case, the officer had his gun drawn, this is only done when you intend to kill. He intended to kill someone that night, and did. Spin it all you want, but It wont matter. The truth is out and the World is already agreeing with me.

That officer is going to Prison.

a reply to: Shamrock6

No, you have not blown a hole in anything, except clearly your own ego, but no one cares.

I disagree, just like if a civilian were to mistakenly shoot their spouse, thinking that they were an intruder because they came home early from a vacation--the civilian would most likely not be arrested.

Inside one's house, an intruder.

Would it be the same shooting that person outside, away from the house?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Hey look, an adult capable of rational thought. Perhaps you and I can engage and leave the kiddie table to clean up their juice.

Yes, I do tend to find that you and I (and a couple others) tend to be the logical ones when these types of events are discussed. I don't think that we always agree (but do for the most part), but I definitely respect your knowledge on the subject since you provide the LEO side and I can offer the courtroom side of things (although limited...I'm not attorney, thank godallahyhwh).

Any body cam policy I'm familiar with dictates that cameras will be activated when there's a reasonable chance of public interaction in the course of duty.

My understanding as well, for the most part, although I'm leaving open the small chance that this officer's policy differs from the norm. I do understand the field of view issue while sitting in a vehicle, but the audio would be nice to have--might have squashed this whole theory before it began.

As for the dash cam, if the camera is linked to the emergency lights, it's not going to be on when the lights are off.

I didn't know that they are on the same circuit as the lights...is this the most common way that they work? It would definitely explain why some interactions are not caught on dash cam.

Honest answer - no, he will not have an SOP that says that (I'm sure you knew that though

).

Guilty, although again, erring on the side of caution, I'm leaving open the small chance that this officer's particular department has some non-normal SOP governing this issue. Remember, in the other thread of the OP's, he claims extensive research into the subject.

I do look forward to your input on these threads, as you seem very objective to the individual nature of each incident.

a reply to: roadgravel

It depends on the circumstances. If the shooter felt that his life was in danger, even if in error, arrest is often not necessary nor appropriate. Usually in those cases, though, it seems like the shooter is generally willing to cooperate, but always reserves the right to plead the fifth and say absolutely nothing.

Keep in mind, though, that being detained and questioned is not the same thing as being arrested, so that is a difference that must be noted in this discussion as well.