Minneapolis Officer Mohamed Noor & Partner Are Lying. - Update

a reply to: GusMcDangerthing

I like friendly...but I also like a friendly battle of words and wits

(just for future reference...emphasis on the "friendly," though. Two can battle and then hug at the end, right?)

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I know but it's late here and if I'm honest I'm just not sharp at midnight. You'd run rings around me and I'd have to eat my words!

a reply to: Shamrock6

That rifle has a silencer or he is shooting outside of a busted window. That's what a suppressed rifle sounds like.

He also was in the moment on this, they were engaging this guy already. He was not just chilling and having a conversation with Joe Blow then having 3 rounds discharged in his face.

You are comparing apples to oranges and hoping they taste the same.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You are on a conspiracy theory forum.

Saying things are or could have been an accident and wait for the investigation are things everyone internally says as by nature of maturing to an adult. It's Sage advice, not real advice, or even pertinent to the discussion at whole.

It sounds like you and the people that cannot fathom the police in this case actively trying to cover up their possible crime absolutely ignore everything that has been presented to you as a possibility because a court of law or the MPD themselves have not come out and told you directly what happened. Sorry to say, but you don't need to be on a conspiracy forum. Maybe to find a blue lives matter forum that does not allow for speculation on details?

a reply to: Xcathdra

You cannot be serious.

Public Opinion 1776: America needs to be free

Rule Of Law 1776: America will be invaded and brought back under our control so help us God.

Go back to England bro!

a reply to: DJMSN

No, You have not.

For that matter, Video proof of all of you shooting a rifle/pistol in your face, inches - foot a away and you not even blinking/having a scared reaction or BS.

a reply to: SR1TX

Must be the world's smallest suppressor then, because when he pulls it from the back seat you can clearly send the end of the barrel is about three inches from the forward sling swivel.

You're right, he didn't have three rounds discharged in his face. Of course, you haven't shown that Harrity did either but that's immaterial. He (the trooper) was in a prolonged gunfight, both inside his vehicle and out, with other officers who were also engaging the subject, and none of them were screaming into the radio despite being in a gunfight.

A gunfight which included rounds impacting their own vehicles. Yea, they were actively taking fire and still not screaming.

I'm not comparing anything to anything buddy. The only one here dealing in absolutes is you, and that's why your theory is so full of holes. You present things as if the only possible explanation is the one you offer and declare the conversation over, you win. All I did was show that it's entirely possible to be in an extreme situation and not scream over the radio. I'm sorry that's inconvenient to your theory, but being inconvenient for you doesn't change the truthfulness of it.

originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Saying things are or could have been an accident and wait for the investigation are things everyone internally says as by nature of maturing to an adult. It's Sage advice, not real advice, or even pertinent to the discussion at whole.

No, it's an appropriate approach to a potentially illegal (and possibly covered-up) act by a police officer.

Jumping to conclusions and resorting to conspiratorial ramblings prior to much even being known about the case is not, at all, a logical approach to take. It's fine to be skeptical of the 'official story,' as I often am, but to take the skepticism and prematurely accuse the officers of proof-less rape and then a murder to cover it up is--well, asinine at this point.

Now, this is the last time that I'm going to reiterate that to you, as I feel like you've cause me to repeat this same thing half-a-dozen times at this point. If you don't agree, that's fine, but let's stop with the façade that your approach is perfectly logical at this point.

It sounds like you and the people that cannot fathom the police in this case actively trying to cover up their possible crime absolutely ignore everything that has been presented to you as a possibility because a court of law or the MPD themselves have not come out and told you directly what happened. Sorry to say, but you don't need to be on a conspiracy forum. Maybe to find a blue lives matter forum that does not allow for speculation on details?

You are not speculating--you have presented and stated your proposed conspiracy as fact on numerous occasions, going as far as saying that it should be perfectly clear that the real scenario is exactly as you describe.

But, please, since you are so omniscient, where have I ever said or implied that I cannot fathom a police cover up in this case? In fact, on multiple occasions, I have noted that it's possible, but IMO, improbable at this point without further evidence.

Are you going to keep spewing out BS about me and my stance, or can you just accept that I'm approaching this objectively, whereas you're approaching it subjectively? That's okay to do, on both our parts, but just don't act so surprised that you have people who are countering your claims, many of which you present as facts without evidence.

ETA: You are talking to someone who, during my stint as a paralegal, helped prosecute police officers and even criminal investigative agents on more than one occasion. If you truly think that I'm incapable of not thinking that LEOs are capable of wrongdoing and lying about it, you are presenting yourself as a presumptive ignoramus (in the least derogatory way to use that word) who understands nothing about those whom you consistently apply ad-hominem attacks.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Harrity admitted it was in front of him. You are the one not wanting to acknowledge this and then understand from his face to steering wheel is maybe 1 ft and a half of space that his partner was firing in. Logic iz hard?

He absolutely discharged that weapon in his face or next to his ear. Just accept you are wrong and move on.

I kind of empathize with the police. You have to assume every citizen is armed now a days. How do you tell the good guys from the bad.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

No, it's an appropriate approach to a potentially illegal (and possibly covered-up) act by a police officer.

Nah uh it's way better to go off your own ignorance about a myriad of subjects, ignore other things, make up some stuff, mold it to fit the story you want to tell, tell your story and declare it the only possible explanation, and then rabidly attack anybody who disagrees with you or presents something that doesn't parrot your own beliefs.

Duh.

a reply to: Shamrock6

DAMMIT!!!

Why do I never get it right?

#sadface #iwenttopublicschools

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I am speaking of a conspiracy theory. You are the only one spewing anything and that is hate for speculation that you do not agree with and trying to deflect based on your personal feelings on the matter.

Let me re-iterate for you. You have nothing to offer this thread other than you think it was an accident. You could have stopped posting pages ago except you want to make sure people just think it was an accident. lol. Show me where someone accidentally turns off their body cam, dash cam, discharges 3 rounds unexpectedly, and then gets a search warrant to search the home of the deceased for bodily fluids when they died down the st in an Alley way completely unrelated to the sitaution.

Trolllololololol.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Rabidly? You have just been proven wrong in every instance and your ego is hurt. Move on.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Getting your attorney's coffee in the morning at SB does not mean you helped prosecute anything. My former g/f of 5 years was an actual Attorney both for the Lower and Supreme court of Alaska and then for the legislature. Trust me when I tell you, my former Paralegal, you did not prosecute anything.

a reply to: SR1TX

And here's the thing--unlike you, I don't jump to conclusions about that, I will wait for the evidence, if any, collected.

Like I have consistently said, if the evidence begins to support your conclusion, I'll be right there with you in my disgust for the officer(s), but I just choose not to jump the gun.

I'm so troll-ish in that regard, and I have offered absolutely nothing to this thread. You are so correct--I appreciate you opening my eyes. I cannot express my thanks enough on here, so can I send you flowers or something?

(that last part is trolling...get your definition of "troll" in line with reality, because disagreeing with someone is not tantamount to "trolling")

a reply to: SR1TX

Neat. None of that is relevant to anything I just said.

I'm talking about how it's entirely possible and plausible to use a radio after having a gun go off next to you without screaming, and you're arguing (with yourself) about how far it is from your face to the steering wheel.

Both your threads, page after page, you continue to argue about things nobody else has said as if it somehow counters what was actually said by whomever you're replying to. No wonder you feel like you're "winning" so hard: you're debating yourself.

a reply to: SR1TX

Nope. You'd have to actually address what I said to prove me wrong. You haven't done that at any point, and haven't done it in your other thread either.

Keep tilting at windmills, Donny.

a reply to: Shamrock6

K, make a video of you having 3 shots fired next to your ear then make a call to someone even just on a cell phone on speaker and have your friend record it. I'd like to see what you sound like and your reaction from start of experiment to finish.

I'll wait.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

At least you went to school. I'm beginning to suspect that other participants of the thread can't even lay claim to public school. (It's okay, I went there too. We can wallow in our free education together)