It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Minneapolis Officer Mohamed Noor & Partner Are Lying. - Update

page: 14
61
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: MotherMayEye

There are transcripts, not sure about actual audio.


I was actually looking for audio of the initial 911 operator to the officers, dispatching them to the address. Which, I assume would have been roughly eight minutes prior to the audio that was released.




posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Transcript of radio traffic with link to audio clip.

Star Tribune link



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yes, I understand which part. I have seen only transcripts but it may be out here.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: caf1550

No one is making the argument they tried to set out to murder Justine.

They were obviously raping someone in the ally, Justine walked out after the second 911 call, saw the officers, Noor was startled, and shot Justine point blank.

As well, Given the time they "Showed up" which was after 11:35, Justine was dead by 11:41. The altercation or alleged crime reported by Justine was still happening. Yet these officers were able to drive through the very long ally in 5 minutes or so, no lights on presumably, stealth mode, did not see anyone, got to the end of it and Killed Justine after talking with her?

Sorry, does not add up. If the officers killed her by 11:41, they were in the Ally by 11:36, or dispatch would have told Justine that help was already there at 11:35 and not to worry, except they said still that they were on there way, as it is SOP as well to report that you are on the scene and responding, but I supposed people will bark about there having to be proof of that SOP too.

Connect the dots, you're almost there.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Transcript of radio traffic with link to audio clip.

Star Tribune link


No, this begins right at/just before the shooting. Justine called 8 minutes earlier, too. I was wondering about the audio from the initial dispatch.

ETA: In fact, the first 911 call ends with the 911 operator telling Justine that officers are on their way. So that audio...when they initially dispatched 8 minutes prior to the beginning of the transcript/audio you linked to.

edit on 7/26/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yes, I understand which part. I have seen only transcripts but it may be out here.


I haven't found it if it's out there, if you happen upon it...please share a link!



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Also...do responding officers normally let the dispatcher know when they arrive at the address called in to let them know they are there?

Anyone know?



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: SR1TX

Again everything you said there is pure speculation on your part. No evidence proves of any of that happening, if It did happen that way both officers would already be in custody and the indictment procedures would begin. Like I have said, just wait for the investigation to play out, its not even being investigated by the MPD but an outside bureau.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Ah, yea I don't think there's been any release of that.

Depending on the CAD system MPD uses, if any, there may not have been much, or any, radio traffic beforehand.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Also...do responding officers normally let the dispatcher know when they arrive at the address called in to let them know they are there?

Anyone know?


Yes. Or if they need clarification on the location, can't find it, etc.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: caf1550

No sir, the speculation is on your part as you would like us to speculate on the good heart of anyone wearing a badge and therefore these people could not possibly be guilty of something more heinous. You want it to be an accident and over look the sheer gross negligence already made public as well as the fact that the initial call was never investigated and said screaming woman that was being raped was never found. IS that speculation to you? All you have offered is that you, and you alone, think it's an accident, and that's not an argument to the contrary as leaving your body cam off IS NOT an accident.

Sand the chip down man, sand it down.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: SR1TX

Everything you said is the definition of speculation on your part.

Just like if I said "maybe the woman calling was the person who was being raped in the alley" again it is speculation for me to say that Damond was not only the caller but the initial victim in all of this and that the 18-25 year old witness is the suspect in the original crime. That is pure speculation. But i'm quite sure that situation never crossed your mind.
Just like you saying that these two officers were raping a woman in the alley is PURE SPECULATION.

Where is the chip I have, im looking for it and can't seem to find it. I have clearly stated that I believe this is a bad shooting and charges should be expected against Officer Noor. But clearly I have a chip somewhere.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Interesting...I don't hear that they did that on the audio. The responding officer just announces that shots were fired and someone was down.

My gut says that the audio has been truncated/edited. Just a gut feeling though. I feel like information should be in the audio that isn't there.




(fyi, my four year old asked me to click the sad face icon, I didn't click it because I am particularly sad about this comment.)



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You tell that kiddo this one's for him/her -


^^ agreed. I don't believe that's a full, unedited version of the call log going all the way back to the initial call.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: SRPrime




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.


I would point out than anyone who believed that is an idiot. Present company included.

www.m1911.org...

.22 long rifle pistol - 152 db

9mm pistol - 160 db
That's interesting i would not have expected such a similar db reading .If the cop was in the passenger seat (lets assume he was rt handed) he could have pushed the gun against the driver side door frame or close to it. I suspect the gun was already drawn how long does it take to figure out it's a blonde in her nightgown? The lack of video evidence is telling is a coverup underway?



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: Shamrock6


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.


There you go...a link backing your claim with apparent evidence? If Noor or Harrity didn't have their body cams on, according to the citation in that link, they were in the wrong. Now, the big question is, what is the prescribed punishment for not following said procedure?

Of course, I would still still like to see the actual wording in the SOP, because differences in words like "should" and "must" and "may" and all of the others have differing legal ramifications in a court of law.

Nevermind, I took it upon myself to do so, since multiple requests from you yielded nothing (this is the active verbiage from the SOP at the time of the shooting...I included the only one that may pertain to the case):

Minneapolis Police Department Policy and Procedure Manual 4-200, Equipment and Supply Responsibilities:
Paragraph 4-223 (Body Worn Cameras [06/29/16]) (IV)(E)(1)(a)

When safe to do so, officers shall manually activate the BWC during the following situations.

- Any search, including but not limited to searches of vehicles, persons, and buildings.

------

d. If there is a failure to activate the BWC in any of the above situations, the Officer shall document the reasons for the failure in the Officer’s report or supplement.

I. If a report is not prepared, the reasons for the failure to activate shall be documented via added remarks in Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD).

So, as you can see, the only portion of the actual SOP that could possibly be construed as mandating these cameras to be on at the time of the shooting is the one about searching, but I would argue that in the instance of these two officers, the SOP did not mandate it, as the examples noted are all instances where an officer is not seated in the cruiser. It also does not note that they must be on when responding to a call prior to making contact with anyone, so while it may be disagreeable that this was not the case at the time, it's right there in the SOP...the actual SOP, not a quote from a media source.

Now, here is the new verbiage from the new updates dated today, July 26th, three days in the future and, in my opinion, should have been already in the SOP (from page 8):

E. Activation (07/29/17)

1. Activation Required

a. When safe to do so, officers shall manually activate the BWC during the following
situations.
Officers shall activate their BWC for the following circumstances:

i. Upon being dispatched and starting travel to a call for service. This includes
assisting squads.

So, my conclusion is that it's a pretty easy argument to make that, prior to the last change, cruising down the street (in their six four) was not a mandated time to have their body cameras turned on. Whether or not they should have done so at their own discretion is another matter, but that's not a mandate, so it's irrelevant.
edit on 26-7-2017 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: caf1550
a reply to: SR1TX

Clearly a tragedy occurred but you just have such a hate for the police that you have to see other nefarious implications to this instead of it being what it is, a tragedy.

This right here should have ended this tired thread.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Wait! Weren't they "searching" the alley for a suspect?



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Justso

she came out of her house to meet the police that is why she was not afraid to be out at night in the neighbourhood .



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

That's my point that I made in my comment: While the SOP says that searches aren't limited to the three examples noted, I would argue that since the examples noted are physical, out of vehicle, hands-on searches, that driving through an alleyway in a vehicle was not intended to be included in the unspecified extension of that list.

More than that, though, I would argue that they were probably simply in response to the call at that point, possibly looking for Ms. Damond's residence while doing a quick sweep of the alleyway at the same time.

But like I keep mentioning to the OP, I'm really trying hard not to engage in speculation, since that's the foundation of my arguments against him, and speculation has no basis in a logical discussion in events like this.



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join