Minneapolis Officer Mohamed Noor & Partner Are Lying. - Update

a reply to: SR1TX

Irrelevant. Try again.

a reply to: SR1TX

Trust me, my little conspiracy theorist, you have no idea what I did. Just because your ex may have treated her paralegal like an uneducated sh*t doesn't mean all do, nor does it mean that all paralegals are created equal. In fact, your ex, from what you just said, sounds like the type of attorney who would have gotten a laxative put in her coffee where I was a paralegal...right before trial. Also, just because you had a girlfriend who was an attorney doesn't make you an expert on what paralegals truly do.

See one of my comments above about your penchant for ad-hominem attacks...but I'm the one trolling. Why can't you just stay on topic concerning your conspiracy theory instead of resorting to playground insults?

a reply to: caf1550

I am not arguing what actually happened that night, but I know that I am from the school of 'Once Burned, Twice Shy".

If "Noor had his weapon drawn because they were going into a unknown situation trying to find a potentially dangerous suspect", then he should have had the cruiser camera on, and in light of his past troubles with encounters with women complainants, he should have definitely had his body camera on.

Of course that is just me. I would want all the proof I could get to protect myself from false accusations, if I had been bitten by that creature even once before.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

AHahaha and there it is.

You did nothing buddy. You got coffee for real attorneys and you think in your time as butler that you learned something. You didn't. You worked likely for hacks, what area of law did they specialize in? Tell me i'd love to know and did you help write their legal arguments like real attorneys and legal opinions? I'm leaning more towards no, since your immediate reaction on what you claim was your "Expertise" and background has just been shown for the fraud it is.

You are a troll bud, move on.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

your penchant for ad-hominem attacks

Well yea. When you can't argue the point, go after the person.

Duh. Again.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Still waiting on that video.

a reply to: SR1TX

Irrelevant. Try again.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Right,

It's irrelevant to see what happens to a human being when a 9MM handgun goes off in front of their face with their heat turned 60 degrees to the left from facing forward speaking to someone without ear protection in.

We should totally just believe that Harrity was able to sustain the hearing damage like he is RoboCop and proceed to not even be so shocked to as then make a radio call as if nothing happened.

Move on man, just move.

a reply to: SR1TX

What are you even talking about, now? What "fraud," and when did I ever claim to be an expert in anything?

Of course paralegals don't write legal arguments or opinions...that's not legally allowed, nor is it appropriate in the judicial system as a whole. I said that I "helped prosecute;" you do understand that "help" is a verb that encompasses many things, like helping with courtroom strategy, helping interview and prepare witnesses, going through evidence, researching cases, typing up legal documents, transcribing recordings (booooring), and the like, correct? I also worked with both prosecution and defense attorneys during my paralegal years, and the defense attorney sounded like a similar attorney to your ex--she always wanted to do things herself and was a control freak, so it really left me nothing much to do, which sucked. May favorite prosecution attorney (who is now a defense attorney in Hawai'i, go figure), used me nearly as an attorney for most things except, obviously, arguing in court. But, yes, I certainly would have gotten coffee for my attorneys at any time, but none of them--not one--ever asked me to.

Like I said, different attorneys view and use paralegals differently, and having been one, I also understand that some paralegals are about as dense as a drop of Jupiter and aren't worth the problems that they cause for some attorneys--hopefully your ex didn't have one of those.

As much as I like thinking about my paralegal days, do you want to discuss your theory about these officers, or should I just go start a thread on my background in the legal field so that it appeases your inability to accept my professional understanding of the law, how to research the law (although I don't have a subscription to LexisNexis anymore...still have a not-cheap Black's Law Dictionary at home, though), and how to discuss it logically?

Why not actually respond to pertinent things that I say instead of personally attacking me and everyone else who has disagreed with you (and, quite honestly, presented their disagreement in about as civil a manner as can be expected at this point)? Seriously, your own choice of how you want to continue will dictate if this thread becomes complete garbage, or may possible continue to be somewhat interesting.

Here's the ball...you decide. It's not going to hurt my feelings to jettison this thread from my life, but the fact that I do find your theory slightly possible, I'm still interested in following it as more evidence hopefully gets released.

a reply to: SR1TX

Speaking of Robocop, check this thing out: Maxim 9

It reminds me of Robocop's gun...I'd like one, but not at $1,500...

Oh, and speaking of Robocop, aren't you the one who pretends that every officer should act like a robot and be expected to follow every SOP perfectly, every time, or else it's circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy? I mean, can an officer not speak on radio calmly and clearly, exactly as trained, even after having a firearm discharged directly in front of him in a car a few times?

I mean, if Noor is a known jumpy, nervous cop, how can you hold him to SOP standards about body and dash cams, and then not expect Harrity to follow SOP in speaking over radio?

Caveat: Not trolling, sincerely asking about what I see as a lack of consistency in your expectations of these officers.

ETA: Since I'm on a conspiracy site (you reminded me of that earlier) and baseless speculation is allowed, what if Noor had a silencer on his weapon at the time of firing and disposed of it, along with the raped woman, before that evidence could be collected?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

It should be second nature to use your training as an officer. It is programmed into you so that you fall back to it every time, like a robot with command line, yes.

Everyone else in life has to follow a SOP, for everything they do. If you are an Officer, and have demonstrated you cannot, you need to be removed from your position and allow for a more calm, collected individual to take your place or you will just get yourself or someone else killed or in trouble as a result of your gross negligence.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

They do not issues silencers to service pistols. See? You can leave that out of the speculation now and focus more on what I presented.

What you should be wondering is how a service weapon is drawn in front of an experienced officer and Harrity did not even try and say stop or push it away so as to not hit Justine after the first round. Did he freeze up instantly? Why was it that if Justine "Slapped the car" from behind, that both did not have their weapons draw? Why would an officer wait for the target to come up to the window already? They would not drive away or back up or something?

Nah sorry, not buying any of it. Noor killed in cold blood.

a reply to: SR1TX

Irrelevant. Try again.

originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: SlapMonkey

It should be second nature to use your training as an officer. It is programmed into you so that you fall back to it every time, like a robot with command line, yes.

Should be, sure, but it isn't always. Like Bruce Lee (and others) have said, it takes practicing (training) something 10,000 times for it to become second nature. I get the feeling that you way over-estimate the amount of re-training that officers get on an annual basis--the lack of consistent, quality training in many police departments is a major problem that even gets cited by police officers, and it often leads to situations just like the one that we're discussing in this thread.

Everyone else in life has to follow a SOP, for everything they do. If you are an Officer, and have demonstrated you cannot, you need to be removed from your position and allow for a more calm, collected individual to take your place or you will just get yourself or someone else killed or in trouble as a result of your gross negligence.

We agree on this point all day long, except that it doesn't need to be gross negligence, just repetitive negligence (incompetence), that should get one fired from a LEO, judicial, or any other similar job.

We should just keep discussing things that we agree upon...so much easier.

a reply to: SR1TX

Well thats the thing right there, police officers are human beings just like yourself and im pretty sure you aren't a robot. Most of the time you will fall back on your training in a highly stressful situation. You're telling me you follow whatever your "SOPs" are all the time to a T. There are certainly circumstances where time does not permit for the use of something, hence why they didn't have the cruisers strobes on going down the alley in the first place, they thought they were looking for a potentially dangerous person. You seem to have all the answers though, maybe you should call the BCA and tell them how to do their job.

Show me the evidence that says the handgun was fired right next to his head/ear you can't because every other news outlet has said differently about where the handgun was when it was fired.

a reply to: caf1550

You need only look at the graphic that was presented on the first page. That is exactly how they stated they were sitting in the vehicle. Unless you live in a warped reality from everyone else. You have to extend your arm/arms from the passenger to the driver side in which case doing so would place your hand directly in front of Harrity's face.

How else do you hit Justine in the abdomen 3 times? A full grown persons stomach/chest is what you are presented with when they are standing at your window be it an SUV, Truck, Or Car..The Officers were in an SUV police cruiser.

Honestly why in God's name is this so hard to accept? There is NO WAY that firearm was discharged there and if it WAS then NOOR needs to be in prison for discharging his fire arm 3 times for no reason which could have resulted in the Death or Injury of/to Harrity and absolutely resulted in the death of Damond. Harrity would have absolutely expected Noor could have fired when he noticed he drew his pistol. Yet did not say put it away or it's ok when he was speaking to Damond???

Think people, for just for 2 seconds!!!

originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: SlapMonkey

They do not issues silencers to service pistols. See? You can leave that out of the speculation now and focus more on what I presented.

Right--the barrels, to my knowledge, aren't even threaded to accept one. But I'm also not going to get angry at you for pointing that out, which is my biggest issue in this thread. Even when I present actual SOPs from the MPD, or quote and cite legal definitions of words to show why your presumption or claim may be wrong, you get angry, defensive, and start with ad-hominem attacks. That makes if very hard to discuss your theory with you.

What you should be wondering is how a service weapon is drawn in front of an experienced officer and Harrity did not even try and say stop or push it away so as to not hit Justine after the first round. Did he freeze up instantly? Why was it that if Justine "Slapped the car" from behind, that both did not have their weapons draw? Why would an officer wait for the target to come up to the window already? They would not drive away or back up or something?

These are the things that are unanswered at this point and only lend themselves to absolute speculation.

I will say this, though...I have trained in the Israeli Point-and-Shoot method (a process of drawing your pistol, charging the slide, and shooting accurately without using sights), and I know for an absolute fact that it's wholly possible go from drawing and firing a pistol three times accurate in the one-second range (probably closwer to two if seated in a vehicle, I would suppose).


This video is actually pretty good discussing the method, if you want to watch (the guy at the end is not very good at it, at least in his speed):

Regardless, I don't think that it's appropriate to expect Harrity to react to a two-second drawing and shooting of a weapon by Noor, especially if it was completely unexpected by Harrity.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Except it's already come out that Noor had his gun drawn already, it was not a 2 second bam bam.

He had the weapon out already presumably in the alley when cruising down it.

This is why i state Harrity would have known that Noor had the weapon drawn, yet even when Damond was not deemed a threat by Harrity, Noor pointed and fired in front of Harrity as some point in the discussion. It was not a "O SH** Bam bam"

He was ready...

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I guess now it's moved in to the realm that Harrity, who was presumably looking to his left at Damond, should've been able to react quickly enough to deflect Noor's weapon in the time it took Noor to raise and fire? Do we even know how long it took Noor to go from weapon drawn to presented to firing? I feel like that's sort of a key element in bashing Harrity for not reacting to it.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

From your link on MPD SOP on BWC :

E. Activation

1. Activation Required
a. When safe to do so, officers shall manually activate the BWC during the following situations.
· Traffic stops.
· Suspicious Person stops.
· Suspicious Vehicle stops.
· Any vehicular response requiring emergency driving as defined by MPD P/P 7-402, or emergency response as defined by MPD P/P 7-403.
· Vehicle pursuits.
· Work-related transports not involving a ride-along or another City employee in their official capacity as a City employee.
· Any search, including but not limited to searches of vehicles, persons, and buildings.
· Any contact involving criminal activity.
· Any contact involving physical or verbal confrontations.
· Any contact that is, or becomes adversarial.
· When advising a person of their Miranda rights.
· When ordered to by a supervisor.
· Prior to any use of force. If a BWC is not activated prior to a use of force, it shall be activated as soon as it is safe to do so.
· Any tactical entry or forced entry into a building, unless a supervisor has determined in advance that the video or audio data could result in the disclosure of operational or tactical information that would compromise the effectiveness of future actions or jeopardize officer safety.
b. Activation shall occur as soon as possible, but before any citizen contact.
i. If a situation changes to require activation, the officer shall immediately activate the BWC as soon as it is safe to do so.


c. All strip searches shall be recorded by at least one person present during the entirety of the strip search, including all pre-search instructions provided to the person being searched.
i. The camera shall be positioned to ensure that only audio data is collected and that the person being searched is not captured on video.
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).
2. Activation with Officer Discretion
a. Officers may activate the BWC in the following situations:

· General citizen contacts where the officer feels that recording is appropriate.
· Anytime an officer feels it is appropriate to preserve audio/visual data when taking a statement from a victim, suspect or witness. Officers should make an effort to notify a victim or witness of the use of the BWC and should attempt to gain their consent to record the statement.
3. The BWC shall not be activated solely for the purpose of surveillance of, or identification of individuals engaged in constitutionally protected activities conducted in a lawful manner. Is rape in the Ally way, Legal??????

F. Deactivation

1. Once activated, the BWC shall be left in the record mode until the conclusion of the event. The conclusion of the event occurs when either the officer or citizen(s) has left the scene or a detention or transport has concluded.

2. Notwithstanding the above, once an event has been stabilized and if the officer reasonably believes there is no longer necessary audio or visual evidence to capture, and that none of the circumstances requiring activation will likely occur, the BWC may be deactivated during activities such as:

· While protecting accident scenes.
· Monitoring assigned traffic posts.
· Assisting motorists.
· To protect the identity of an officer in an undercover capacity.
· To protect the identity of a confidential reliable informant.
· The incident or event is of such duration that it is necessary to deactivate the BWC to conserve power or storage.If it is necessary to discuss issues surrounding the incident/investigation with a supervisor or another officer in private, officers may turn off their BWC. This includes discussions between Field Training Officers with officers in training that are specific to training issues.
· If a request is made for a BWC to be turned off by a party being contacted, the officer should take into account the overall circumstances and what is most beneficial to all involved, before deciding to honor the request. For example, an officer may choose to turn off the BWC if its operation is inhibiting a victim or witness from giving a statement. Factors to consider may include the type of call and the vulnerability of the victim, such as the victim of a sexual assault.
· When ordered to by a supervisor. Both the officer and supervisor shall document the reason for the deactivation as described in the Report Writing section of this policy.

^ None of the above reasons apply as a reason to turn off the cameras as any point.

Thanks for helping my argument, a lot. And this from your link as well:

5. Officers shall conduct a BWC equipment check to ensure that equipment is working properly at the beginning of their shift and periodically throughout the shift.
6. Officers shall notify their immediate supervisor as soon as practical of any missing, damaged, or malfunctioning BWC equipment.
7. Officers experiencing a loss of battery power shall remove themselves from service and take immediate steps to charge their BWC. Officers shall notify their supervisor and Minneapolis Emergency Communications Center (MECC) upon removing themselves from service.
8. Officers shall notify their immediate supervisor of any recorded event believed to be of value for administrative review.
9. Officers shall upload all BWC digital data at the conclusion of their shift by placing their BWC in the assigned docking stations or utilizing other department approved uploading procedures.


Noor is going to Prison as is Harrity