Minneapolis Officer Mohamed Noor & Partner Are Lying. - Update

a reply to: SlapMonkey

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.

It really depends on the model of camera system and the department policy, and it can vary greatly from one agency compared to the next county over. Some models are made to run continuously and have to be switched on or off by the officer at the beginning or end of a shift, others are connected to the emergency lights so that any instance where the lights are activated, the camera records; still others are simply controlled by the officer and the agency dictates when they have to be activated.

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

Likewise. Whether we agree or not, your comments are rooted in rationality and looking at the evidence available.

Though it's always mildly entertaining (at first, anyway...then it just gets old) to watch the less rational among us change their tune from story to story. One day you're a cop-apologist shill, the next you're a bleeding heart liberal that hates anybody with a badge.

Lulz

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Pleading the 5th does not absolve your from having the right to remain silent while under arrest for the possible murder of said spouse and having the right to an attorney and if one not being able to be afforded will be afforded to you. Nor does it give you the right to leave the scene all together and seek an attorney in the meantime while in hiding from the authorities.

Sinking in yet? Not really? Horse to water kind of thing?

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

he problem with the USPD is many officers are not approachable, this poor Aussie woman made the fatal mistake in thinking that the US cops wouldn't use lethal force because using a firearm should be the last act rather then the first.

So this entire statement is completely not true, every officer I know personally and professionally are very approachable people both on and off duty. Every department trains their officers to use the duty handgun as a last resort or when all other means are not applicable. I'm not defending what Officer Noor did because I think he was a little to jumpy and he fired directly across his partners chest which I would never train my rookie officers to do unless they came under gunfire and were only doing so to keep heads down and find better cover.

Also after reading your post I can see you know absolutely nothing about police practice or policing in America, you are just bias in this situation because she was Australian, if she was just some American women I'm sure we wouldn't be hearing from most of the members posting here.

Like I have said in every thread about this, an investigation doesn't finish overnight, it takes time. Let the investigation play out.

originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: SlapMonkey

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

A homicide simply means the killing of one human being by another; not all homicide is criminal in nature. So, yes, intent does matter--it always does, concerning criminal charges. Again, your ignorance to the law is showing.

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.

You get criminal charges because the person was doing something illegal in the first place (driving while intoxicated) that cause the death.

A police officer, responding to a call of possible sexual conduct in an alleyway, is not doing an illegal act.

And for the record, negligent homicide is not the same as manslaughter.

In this case, the officer had his gun drawn, this is only done when you intend to kill.

Incorrect--pointing a firearm at someone can be done for many reasons, one of which is simply to be at the ready when you perceive a potential threat. Another can be to gain control of a situation simply by introducing the firearm as a threat to someone who is out of control (which could also be considered a way to deter a suspect or individual from further inappropriate actions). There are other reasons as well, but it would really do you well to stop speaking in such absolutes--it really digs yourself a deeper hole every single time.

He intended to kill someone that night, and did.

Well, you can prove half of that statement. The other half was pulled out of your ass and served on a paper plate, but it's still a pile of unsubstantiated, speculative crap.

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.

Please cite the part of the constitution that governs the judicial system where it says the court of public, international opinion is the supreme judge and jury. Please include that with your link to all of these SOPs that you claim to have extensively researched.

I'll be back from lunch soon and I'll check in to see the progress, because remember, it's an absolute, 100% logical fallacy to make a claim and then not back it up with factual evidence. You wouldn't want to be basing your opinion on a logical fallacy, would you? I mean, one might determine that to be a form of "spin" in order to back your own hypothesis.

Spinning is bad, MmmKay?

originally posted by: SRPrime

originally posted by: DAVID64

Only he would not of been talking back to the radio operator because he would have been deaf from the shots his partner allegedly placed from the point blank range proximity moments ago

I've had weapons fired very close to me in enclosed spaces, with no hearing protection and while it is loud/painful and my ears were ringing, it's not like I was deaf and couldn't hear anything at all. I could still hear normal conversation. Besides that, the officer reports 'shots fired" after they were fired. You don't need to hear to talk.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not making excuses for the cops. Something funny is going on and I will bet you anything you like, that they find a way to say this was a good shoot and the officer faces no consequences.

No way; as someone who definitely has been in an enclosed space when a firearm was discharged, wearing hearing protection and being almost completely deaf, the only way your scenario is possible is if it was an extremely small caliber round, like a .22. Keep in mind exactly how small a cab of a squad car is; it's tiny, and for the passenger to fire at a target at the driver side window, he would had to have put the gun right in the face of the driving officer. So no; it's not just a firearm in a small space, it's a fire arm in a TINY space RIGHT next to his ear without any ear protection.

Infact; most people think there is no reason to own a .22, but the reason is, it's the only safe firearm to discharge in enclosed spaces without hearing protection.

If that really did happen, and he was talking despite having blast effect, he would have been yelling into that radio, and he wasn't.

I hate when people lie to make a point, don't do it -- you can be empirically proven wrong, and mad people who even shoot at the range know you're full of it.

Nothing you said is true, you don't need to put the handgun directly infront of your partners face to put rounds through the window or door panels, and I have been in small rooms doing house clearing and been in the front of a car engaging through the windshield and fired my service rifle without any hearing protection on and besides the ringing in my hears I was totally fine. No he wouldn't have been yelling into that radio because in situations like this training takes over and those who train correctly are cool under pressure hence the phrase train like you fight.

a reply to: caf1550

Hooray! Another voice of reason!

a reply to: Shamrock6

www.startribune.com...

"The current policy requires officers to turn on their cameras in more than a dozen situations, including for a traffic stop, search of a person or building, any contact involving criminal activity and before the use of force. In the last instance, the policy says if officers can't turn cameras on before using force they should do so afterward, as soon as it's safe."

Except Damond was talking with the driver and he did not perceive her as a threat at all. Why was the weapon drawn if there was no threat and why did both Officers clearly violate SOP of MPD as stated - going into a criminal activity situation?

www.startribune.com...

That is the body cam model purchased to the tune of $4,000,000.00 A lofty price tag for something that was delivered in MAY of 2017, but these two officers, having them equipped, chose not to use them. I suppose because broken, right?

There were no "Helmet Mounted" body cameras. As well, unless you are trying to say Noor fired with his arm turned sideways out of the vehicle and not facing the actual targrt, the idea the body camera has neither visual or audio evidence as to the cause of Justine's murder, were it available, is Horse S****. It would have caught it all and that is why they turned them off prior to all of this. They were already there which is why the squad car captured nothing.

I am sorry to say. You are both trolling at this point.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I would think outside a person would need to show more reason for the need for deadly force. One's house tends to add quite a bit of leeway in many states.

a reply to: SR1TX

I hate to say it, but it could have been cats mating.

Imagine if it was all because of some loud cats...

a reply to: RomeByFire

I stopped reading your post after you referred to the police as "pigs" you lost all credability, as for police murdering innocent citizens and not being held accountable I totally believe Noor will be held accountable in this situation, but as for the other ones they were all deemed to be good shootings and for the ones that went to court, A JURY OF THEIR PEERS found them not guilty, people forget about that part.

Has it been stated which officer(s) actually used the radio. It was not clear in the early days.

a reply to: caf1550

You don't need to, except that is what was reported. He fired in front of his face is what was stated. 3 Times.

a reply to: roadgravel

Unit 502 - The voice is Officer Harrity. Noor is not likely going to have an American Accent. He is the Sgt.

a reply to: Butterfinger

I have heard cats....They do not sound like they are saying 'Help". A grown woman, a mother, would know when someone is in trouble. Her instincts knew to call 911 because something was wrong.

a reply to: SR1TX


What I don't get is why the officers would have a search warrant for her house after she dies, for bodily fluids?? Something doesn't seem quite right with that department. Are trying to plant evidence to make her look bad? I hope the husband fought that in court.

originally posted by: SR1TX
Chilling like a gangster?

Ummmm...it's pronounced "gangsta."

For reference (language warning):


Ahhhhhhh...90s gangsta rap. Go to 2:35 if you need to hear it repeated.

a reply to: SRPrime

No, no it wouldn't, as for the glass partition between the front and back seats of the cruiser...those are not bullet proof at all, they are made of Plexiglas and are there so a suspect in the backseat cannot spit at or try to bite the officer and not all cruisers even have that partition.

originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: roadgravel

Unit 502 - The voice is Officer Harrity. Noor is not likely going to have an American Accent. He is the Sgt.

likely?

Isn't it unit 530?

"530, shoots fired, can we get EMS, Washburn"

edit:

Can't find where PD actually states who made the calls. Do lean toward Officer H

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Gross Negligence is Criminal. It will come out and already has been shown that Gross Negligence towards the SOP has been demonstrated by both officers on this call. You cannot simply, as a doctor for example, get wasted before someone Surgery, slice and dice their Aorta on accident, and say it was an accident. It's not Negligence either, it's Gross Negligence, which will land you in Jail/Prison.

The Officers did not see any misconduct going on according to them and on the same call no additional suspects were at large. So the victim/possible rapist, was gone between 35-41, but Justine had enough time in that to leave the home, end up on the opposite end of the street, find the officers "Responding", talk to the driver, and get shot by Noor too? Fairly amazing 5 minutes of life there that many seem to be wishing was not so obviously full of holes.

You do not need to prove anything when someone pulls a gun. When a gun is drawn, it is done so to kill or absolutely let someone know you are Boss and to leave. There was no perceived reason for either when Justine was talking to the driver, so why was she shot by Noor if not a threat to Harrity, the driver? Why was Harrity "Shocked" that Noor did it at all?

There is no opinion here. A crime was committed. You want to try and argue what kind is the only difference.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I would think outside a person would need to show more reason for the need for deadly force. One's house tends to add quite a bit of leeway in many states.

Of course, it always depends on the state's laws--I was speaking in general. I'm sure that, say, if you misinterpret an unarmed person as a threat and shoot them with a legally carried firearm in California (where I grew up), it's going to be a much different experience if, say, it happened in Kentucky (where I currently reside).

That's the problem with generalized statements--of course, there will always be exceptions, but in general, what I said SHOULD be fairly accurate, depending on the knowledge of the laws that the on-scene police officers have at the time.