Minneapolis Officer Mohamed Noor & Partner Are Lying. - Update

originally posted by: Shamrock6
It's a fine line to walk, between getting the investigation done quickly while not rushing and causing any sort of compromise in the integrity of it.

And no matter how it turns out, the court of public opinion, juried by folks no legal or law enforcement background and a massive lack of facts and information pertinent to a thorough investigation, will have already convicted one officer or both.

It's amazing how different the world can be when one patiently waits instead of jumping to conclusions. The outcome may possible end up being the same, but at least the intelligent route was taken instead of the hasty one.

a reply to: caf1550

Accident? shot more than once by accident? as I understand it he fired more than once..I don't know how you define "accident"

a reply to: SlapMonkey
But they were not cruising down the street, they were actively searching that alley for signs of lawlessness so why on earth wouldn't they have not only the dash cam activated but also their individual cameras. Someone is screaming for help in the alley and they don't turn the camera on when they start down the alley???

Add in the fact that the shooter has refused to give a statement---doesn't make it smell any better. But I'm fully aware that some on this board can justify any shooting---no matter if there are cameras or not. That blue line is strong---just like the elected politicians that won't rat out each other.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: GusMcDangerthing

I have ignored no such context, but you are free to interpret my own understanding of the legal system as you deem fit, I suppose.

That's generally the way it works.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Shamrock6
It's a fine line to walk, between getting the investigation done quickly while not rushing and causing any sort of compromise in the integrity of it.

And no matter how it turns out, the court of public opinion, juried by folks no legal or law enforcement background and a massive lack of facts and information pertinent to a thorough investigation, will have already convicted one officer or both.

It's amazing how different the world can be when one patiently waits instead of jumping to conclusions. The outcome may possible end up being the same, but at least the intelligent route was taken instead of the hasty one.

You seem to believe, strangely, that the public should not have an opinion.

a reply to: GusMcDangerthing

Opinions are fine... Substituting a court of law for a court of public opinion is the problem.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: GusMcDangerthing

Opinions are fine... Substituting a court of law for a court of public opinion is the problem.

That's pretty much how your country was established, wasn't it?

originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: Willtell

I feel for the Victim in this case.

She left everything she had to come to a foreign land..A land that just 30 years ago was described to the world as being the shining city on a hill. Now what are we if this story gets buried? What are we? I have chosen this battle in particular because no one, and i mean, no one, deserves to have their life stripped from them by those who claim they are here to serve and protect. Something is G*d D*** wrong here and I know everyone feels it.

We cannot stand by and be idle about this. 10 Days ago, it was Justine, 5 days from now, it could be you or someone you care about. I feel for this Victim from Oz and want nothing more than to see Justice served for if it is not, if we fail, then all is lost.

The Truth Must Have A Light Bearer...It must.

There is something not right about their story, we the people are becoming gruff, desensitized to the violence attacking us from all sides. 25 years ago children and adults were not exposed to the ideas of torture or beheading now common in the media. A sure sign of a society under stress-upside down.

originally posted by: GusMcDangerthing

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: GusMcDangerthing

Opinions are fine... Substituting a court of law for a court of public opinion is the problem.

That's pretty much how your country was established, wasn't it?

Our country was established based on a tax rebellion. Wasn't your country of Australia a penal colony?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: GusMcDangerthing

Opinions are fine... Substituting a court of law for a court of public opinion is the problem.

No. Getting bad cops in front of a court of law is the problem. When laws were passed that made penalties stiffer if the victim was a member of law enforcement was the first step down that slippery slope. That made them think they are somehow more important than Joe on the Street. They're not. They can brutalize citizens, they can brutalize their family and friends and suffer no consequences because they are a protected class. That is wrong.

They know they will never face a jury and that even if they do, their brothers in blue will back them up.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: GusMcDangerthing

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: GusMcDangerthing

Opinions are fine... Substituting a court of law for a court of public opinion is the problem.

That's pretty much how your country was established, wasn't it?

Our country was established based on a tax rebellion. Wasn't your country of Australia a penal colony?

Yes and we are incredibly proud of it, too. I guess that part has flow right over your head thus far but at least now you know.

Anyway, taxes are law are laws and the court system are two heads of the same beast. You can't espouse being strictly law-abiding in a country that so often proudly proclaims its rebellious, 'unlawful' history and not be called on it.

a reply to: SR1TX

A lot to consider. One point you make is indisputable, though.

If the cop on the passenger side shot past the cop in the driver's seat, yes, that would have been deafening to that cop, and he wouldn't have reacted so calmly afterward. Something VERY off there. I can't believe I didn't catch that before. Been a hectic few weeks...

Also, yes, there would be GSR in the car, and on BOTH cops, if that's what actually happened. I'd love to know if they were checked for that.

Much we still don't know on this case. Anything new from the police?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Here's a video of multiple troopers involved in a running gun battle with a suspect they know has already killed one person and attempted to kill the troopers as well.

One trooper has an in vehicle camera pointed at himself. At engaging the suspect out of the vehicle, the trooper gives chase and again engages the subject from inside his own vehicle. All of the troopers involved use the radio, including the one shooting from inside his own vehicle, and he isn't screaming in to the radio despite multiple engagements. Is he wearing ear protection? I don't see any on him, nor any of the other troopers.

So it is most assuredly disputable that "the cop wouldn't have reacted so calmly." Not everybody goes into an immediate panic in an emergency. I suggest you listen to a big city's police scanner. For every guy who's voice rises, there's another who sounds asleep. It's intentional.

youtu.be...

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: SR1TX

Much we still don't know on this case. Anything new from the police?

Just that thing they came up with about a 'female' having touched the squad car and also them having a search warrant and they're looking for bodily fluids in her home.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: SlapMonkey
But they were not cruising down the street, they were actively searching that alley for signs of lawlessness so why on earth wouldn't they have not only the dash cam activated but also their individual cameras. Someone is screaming for help in the alley and they don't turn the camera on when they start down the alley???

I've already noted in this thread more than once that I think that they should have had the dash cam on once they turned on to that alleyway. My whole argument is the letter of the SOP, and how they define "search," and from reading that SOP, I think that they could argue their way out of thinking that they needed to turn it on that that point.

Again, whether they should have is a different discussion altogether.

Add in the fact that the shooter has refused to give a statement---doesn't make it smell any better. But I'm fully aware that some on this board can justify any shooting---no matter if there are cameras or not. That blue line is strong---just like the elected politicians that won't rat out each other.

The problem here is that no one, that I have seen, has tried to argue that the shooting is justified--maybe I missed that somewhere? What I and others have been arguing about is the flimsy circumstantial or incomplete evidence used to conjure up the OP's theory that the police officers got caught raping someone and killed Ms. Damond to preserve their secrecy.

But I will tell you, and I've mentioned it before in this thread as well, that if someone (i.e.: The OP) is unhappy with the amount of subjective determination available to police officers concerning lethal force, that should be taken up with lawmakers, to with the police officers who, most often times, are acting within legal parameters of use of lethal force. In most states, the officer just simply has to have felt that their life or the life of someone else was in immediate danger in order to use lethal force.

Personally, I think that this parameter is perfectly acceptable, but at the same time, I think the problem lies in not enough training in other methods (like hand-to-hand combat, or non-lethal options) that give our police officers a big enough arsenal from which to choose their method of handling a situation.

But in this particular instance, like many others have already noted, Noor had no reason to fire on Ms. Damond that I can conceive at this point, but that doesn't negate the reality that the OP and others have been making unsubstantiated claims and arguments in order to support the theory in the OP, and that's what most of us have been debating...a debate to which it's blatantly obvious that the OP is allergic and only appears to want an echo chamber, otherwise we're "just trolling."

originally posted by: GusMcDangerthing
You seem to believe, strangely, that the public should not have an opinion.

Is your reading comprehension failing?

I said--and I'll quote (as you did)--"And no matter how it turns out, the court of public opinion, juried by folks no legal or law enforcement background and a massive lack of facts and information pertinent to a thorough investigation, will have already convicted one officer or both."

Now, please indicate where, specifically, in that statement that I say that the public should not have an opinion. If you had your thinking cap on at the time you read this, you would be able to see that I'm pointing out that the general public tends to voice opinions on matters about which they do not have an in-depth understanding. In the case of these types of instances (officer-involved shootings), that is detrimental to a complete and proper conclusion. Most people jump to conclusions before all of the available information and evidence is made available in subjects where they are already lacking any real understanding of the process.

The public is always entitled to their opinions, but that doesn't make their opinions correct, or even warranted, at the time that they make them.

There, is that better spelled out for you now? The general public is not a court of law, and too many who act in the way that I just described think that it should be, and if the popular opinion of this people's court isn't the outcome of a real, actual trial, they lose their ever-living sh*t and throw temper tantrums.

Enjoy those opinions, and I'll continue to condemn them and bring actual intelligent and logical discussion to the table. If you don't like or appreciate that, then ignore me.

a reply to: SlapMonkey


Clearly you implied and you know full well you did, don't try to play games with me it'll be like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

originally posted by: diggindirt
No. Getting bad cops in front of a court of law is the problem.

You just fulfilled the prophecy in that comment.

How, exactly, do you know that a cop is bad if they haven't yet been tried and convicted, or even if there is not a finished investigation into the incident, as is the case with Officer Noor?

I'll be the first to admit that the justice system, when it comes to law enforcement, is not perfect, and having sat in an AUSA's office in Los Angeles and discussed federal cases with him, a few other AUSAs, and federal investigators in the room, at one point the discussion turned to the corruption of the courts in Los Angeles (mostly defense attorneys, but also a couple judges). The things that they told me left me very disheartened in the way that our justice system CAN be corrupted.

But that said, most jurisdictions in our country's legal system work very well and as designed, so while in a few areas of the country it may be difficult to get officers indicted for wrongdoings, that tends to be a minority of instances.

Take officer Ray Tensing here in Cincinnati--murder charges were finally officially dropped on him a few days ago after he was tried TWICE, and both times, after record-setting deliberation times (for the state of Ohio) by the juries, both trials resulted in a hung jury (mistrial). Yet, after two attempts at convicting this officer, BLM and other groups are still out screaming and crying for justice and demanding a third trial--intelligently, the DA finally admitted defeat.

Justice was delivered--twice. Just because they didn't get the outcome that they wanted, they claim that it's not justice. Justice isn't only achieved during convictions, and I think that people fail to remember that when they jettison all logic in lieu of emotions.

I say that last part because it's very easy for laymen to claim that a cop is dirty, or committed murder just because a civilian is dead, but it's exceptionally difficult to find these same people who, at the same time, have an in-depth understanding of the case against which they are protesting and arguing, or the legal system and laws in general.

They know they will never face a jury and that even if they do, their brothers in blue will back them up.

Actually, they don't know this. In fact, most officers that I know (which is admittedly very few) are concerned every day about people who are so quick to make false accusations against LEOs or are quick to make complaints. They know that every time, they are just a step away from trouble.

My friend who is a cop in Modesto, CA, is one of the kindest people I know, literally becoming a cop because he wants the ability to help people--no ego, no angry bone in his body. Yet, he is constantly concerned about that first time in his career where he will possibly have to pull a firearm and use it against another human being. It literally keeps him up at night, and while it is the concern of possibly taking another human being's that is the main worry, it's not also lost on him that, even if it were fully justified, the public will put so much pressure on his department that he could lose his livelihood and job that he loves, even for a justified shooting.

And therein lies my disgust with the court of public opinion--it is claimed that officers don't get punished if they don't go to court or get convicted, but Ray Tensing was fired prior to indictment, and it's quite possible that he will never work as a LEO again (maybe rightfully so), even though the judicial system has failed twice to prove his guilt. Yet, between death threats, public shaming, and most likely having to figure out another profession (amongst other things, I'm sure), Ray Tensing has certainly been punished for his own actions (which, by the way, I feel were unnecessary, but not criminal).

I know that these two example equate to anecdotal evidence, but still, it illustrates the reality that not all cops have a god complex, nor is a trial and conviction the only way that these officers get punished, sometimes even unfairly.

originally posted by: GusMcDangerthing
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Clearly you implied and you know full well you did, don't try to play games with me it'll be like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Don't project your misinterpretation onto me.

Thanks for the chuckle, though.

(and for the record, knives are much more dangerous than guns during a confrontation [at least for trained individuals]--that's a terrible cliché that is overused)

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I thought it rather apt. I don't know you but it's rare that anyone would be able to out do me in a battle of words and wit. I wish I had bigger muscles but we use what we are given.

Let's just move on and be friendly.