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: 18
61
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: SR1TX

And? They weren't in the midst of a traffic stop, nor had they stopped to investigate a suspicious person yet.

I already cited the only one that could possibly be used to say that they should have had the cameras turned on, and even that one is stretching it, IMO. Now, the update dated to go into effect on Saturday would clearly mean they should have already turned them on, and should have been included in the manual the entire time...again, in my opinion.

All of this ad nauseam discussion about body- and vehicle-camera SOP would have been unnecessary. Vagueness in rules and regulations is a pet peeve of mine, but, man, it certainly is a cash cow for lawyers and a drain on the legal system.

ETA: Damn, I didn't see that you quoted the entirety of the thing when you could have just quoted relevant portions, like I did. I'm not trying to help or hinder your case, I'm just trying to appropriately contribute to the thread. But you must understand that police-department manuals are not the same as municipal or state laws, so even if they failed to follow the SOP in these manuals, those failures are not synonymous with criminal activity. It can certainly be used to show incompetence or negligence, though.

You'll also note that I included the portion that notes that, if they fail to turn on their camera during the prescribed instances, they must make a statement/report as to why they failed to do so. I wonder if that was done.

edit on 27-7-2017 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   
DP
edit on 27-7-2017 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: SR1TX

Officers draw their handguns in their cruisers all the time, they were looking for a potentially dangerous person, they didn't know was armed or not so professionally speaking I am totally fine with Noor having drawn his weapon while in the cruiser. It is incredibly easy to hit someone in the abdomen without sticking your handgun in front of someones face. You can shoot from other positions than just having your arms fully extended or are you to dense to realize that. If she was bent at the waist while talking to Officer Harrity it would have made it all the easier for Noor to hit her in the abdomen.

Just because they were sitting a certain way in the vehicle doesn't necessarily mean that is the only way one can discharge a firearm, clearly you have never shot in a car/suv/truck before or done any type of drill where a subject charges you and you fire from the chest and not with your arms fully extended.

I have already stated that I believe Noor is in the wrong, he should not of discharged but I am also waiting for the investigation to finish before I completely condemn him. You keep bringing up the search warrant for the house, you don't know the evidence the detectives found at the scene, because the BCA doesn't talk to the press until the investigation is finished which is why everything for the most part in the news is all speculation at this time. The BCA have only given two statements to the press, everything else has come from suppose witnesses, only two statements have come from the investigating authority.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I can see where you are coming from with that, and yes he should have done everything in his power to protect himself from bringing any unwanted or unfounded lawsuits against him again.


(post by SR1TX removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey


Vagueness in rules and regulations is a pet peeve of mine, but, man, it certainly is a cash cow for lawyers and a drain on the legal system.


And, unfortunately, also for those would seek to exploit the vagueness to suit their own agenda.

Regardless of which side of the line they may be on with their agenda.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: caf1550

I truly hope that the autopsy results are released that explain bullet trajectory, as that will either support or disprove the claim that the gun was fired directly in front of Harrity's face.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: SR1TX

Yea.....

Actually the term "search" has a legal definition. Pursuant to the 4th amendment, a search is when an agent of the government violates a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.

A search, according to law, is not "driving down an alley looking around."



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: SR1TX

Noor yes, if you found guilty will be going to prison for what most likely will be 2nd degree murder at the worst, Manslaughter at the least, but nothing for not following SOP

Harrity I hate to break it to you will not be going to prison, as not following SOP doesn't carry a prison sentence, he will however either be fired from the MPD or receive a lengthy suspension without pay.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: caf1550

Why would a full grown adult be bent over looking into and SUV? Was she an Amazon? Did she as well notice his gun was drawn? Why would Harrity not as well say "Could you please back up?" He would have known his partner was on edge. Cops always say back up or hold it or whatever. Instead they were having a conversation already/talking. She was accepted to be in his proximity otherwise she would have been commanded to step back and that would have been the story, except it's not. Noor shot in cold blood. You are trying to say this guy had some sort of acute accuracy with that service weapon. What did he do then, recoil into the door frame as much as he could then fire with the weapon close to his chest?

Video of you shooting in the car/truck or BS.


She was talking to the officers. One determined she was no threat at all, the other killed in cold blood. Get over it! They are going to prison, chip, i mean, caf.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I'm sure even if they are released to show bullet trajectory and they show the gun wasn't discharged directly in front of Officer Harritys face it will all be because "the coroner was in on the cover up"



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: SR1TX

The reason that I'm not a lawyer is because I never wanted to be, and too many are too difficult to work with in a productive manner (I know this, because I work directly with AUSAs now on a daily basis...not that this will mean anything to you, I'm sure). Oh, and I didn't go to law school and pass the bar exam. Those are a few reasons, too.

And I'm not a paralegal anymore--I thought that was pretty damn clear at this point.

Now, if you have noted ANYTHING that I have said about the "searches" line (the one that I specifically cited as the only one possibly relevant to the situation), you would understand that what I have said is that it would be relatively easy to argue that it would not apply to this instance because it would be claimed by either/both officer(s) that, at that point in time, they were still responding to the call and not actively searching for someone. You'll also note that it would be arguable that, since the noted searches specified in the manual are hands-on, outside-of-the-cruiser type of searches, that the officers felt that this was not an instance where turning on the cameras was a necessity (barring any provable training that noted otherwise).

They may be flimsy arguments, but remember, I worked with defense attorneys before, so I understand the ridiculousness that some will immerse themselves into in order to try and wiggle a client out of a charge. Nowhere, not at one point, have I made the claim that the cited paragraph of the SOP absolutely does not apply to them.

Has either made a statement saying that, at that specific moment, they had been searching for the suspect? That's a serious question (and if the answer is "yes," can you provide a source to validate that answer?). Because if one of them (probably Harrity at his point) made the comment that they were searching for the alleged rape at the time of Damond's approach to their vehicle, that would go a long way in negating an argument against the SOP applying to this incident.

See how that works? I'm open to both possibilities because both are possible, dependent upon evidence. A lawyer, on the other hand, would subscribe to only one side and run with it. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer.


edit on 27-7-2017 by SlapMonkey because: clarity



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: SR1TX

The recoil on most service weapons are not severe at all, you could easily fire the handgun from your chest with little to no recoil at all, sorry I don't video tape myself when i'm training because I focus on my training over anything else. You've never leaned on a SUV drivers side window before and bent at your waist, what are you a midget. Maybe she did notice his gun was drawn, we will never know.

Why would Officer Harrity tell her to back up, he didn't know what she wanted or if she was a threat or not. I have talked to people at my cruiser and my partner had his weapon drawn while I was talking to them, these people were minutes later deemed to be threats that we then dealt with appropriately, we ordered them to get back and get on the ground all while my partner maintained security for myself and him while I went hands on with the suspect and placed them in hand restraints.

Yes I agree, if this is found to be a bad shooting then yes Officer Noor will be going to prison. however Officer Harrity will not be, he did nothing illegal in this situation and has been more then cooperative in the investigation of all the events.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: SR1TX

Yea.....

Actually the term "search" has a legal definition. Pursuant to the 4th amendment, a search is when an agent of the government violates a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.

A search, according to law, is not "driving down an alley looking around."

This is actually a fair point, unless Minnesota (and I'm not going to look to see) has defined the term "search" in a different manner or expanded upon it.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: caf1550
a reply to: SR1TX

Yes I agree, if this is found to be a bad shooting then yes Officer Noor will be going to prison.

As he should--why SR1TX seems to think that none of us feel this way is astounding to me.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6


originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: SR1TX

Yea.....

Actually the term "search" has a legal definition. Pursuant to the 4th amendment, a search is when an agent of the government violates a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.

A search, according to law, is not "driving down an alley looking around."


The replied to post you ref'ed is gone so maybe it was about a "legal search" under the law.

"search" does have more then one meaning in our society.

The "driving down an alley to look for someone" is valid in the terms of a search, I would think. It's just not the same as being checked by an officer for items on your person under the term legal search.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Not sure I believe the official story at this point, just offering some observations.


I have been trained to shoot in and around vehicles. It is a very different experience to shooting in an indoor range. Its not the same at all in fact. If you have never done it, its not something that will be intuitive at all. There are things that you have to be aware of and take accounting of. Most of what you see on TV with regard to it is false. It is very loud and there is a distinct amount of overpressure due to the confined space. That being said a single shot would not be enough to eliminate your hearing ability for a significant time. Having the windows open is a big help with that. Multiple shots is another story, and spending an entire weekend doing it for hours gave me a headache even with ear protection.

Caf mentioned shooting from a retention position. That is shooting with the pistol pulled closely to your body and not having the arm extended out. This is a rather common technique now in the self defense community but it is not something commonly taught to police. I am sure urban departments have more advanced training that include this and Noor may have been to that type of training. That technique however is not one that would be safe to use from the passenger seat when firing toward his partner in the drivers seat. The safe technique there would be to use the opposite (support) hand to push the driver back while extending the firearm out to full extension and fire at the person in the drivers window. Unless he was left handed which would involve that same technique but doing it all with the left arm. Either way the gun would be essentially in the face of the driver. BTDT, and while its startling its not something that has you "literally shaking".
If he did indeed fire from a close retention position then I would tend to put this in the category of an AD.
If he had his weapon in hand its entirely possible that he was just very careless and didnt have his finger off the trigger. I am curious with regard to the location of the shot. Did he hit the door and the shot deflected into the victim or did he fire through the window?

There is a lot that is still in the dark with this one but you cant immediately jump on the cops and say "bad shoot". At this point I would lean toward Accidental Discharge, which you can understand the city being very hesitant to address because they are going to be financially liable for that.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

It's gone because it contained some pretty obvious ad homs.

My comment was in regards to how the policy that Slap posted might (key word MIGHT) be defining "search."

Given the entirety of the policy, I think it's more than plausible that the policy references searches in a 4th Amendment context, because it references the search of persons, buildings, vehicles, etc. It makes no reference to "searching an area" or anything along those lines. Not that I saw, anyway.

Looking around an open, public area is not by law a "search" in a 4th Amendment context.

Am I entirely correct? No idea, because I don't care to spend that much time looking in to Minnesota law, but the only mentions I found in a cursory search for Minnesota search and seizure protections mentions the same items: persons, personal possessions, and residences. Not open, public areas. Also, as we don't have the entirety of the department's policies and procedures, we don't know if they have an expanded definition of what a "search" is in the context of body cams. What I get out of the policy that was posted is that they're referring to 4th Amendment searches only.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Oh, if it was about policy then I would think it was about 4th searches. That would make sense given the context. Thanks for the replay.

edit:

It could see the desire to capture the event to cover illegal search claims.
edit on 7/27/2017 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

No problem. Context matters so I hope I cleared it up


As an aside - I think the bodycams angle is moot. Even if they had been activated, I don't think they would've shown much because the model that MPD uses is generally worn mid-chest or attached to a shirt pocket. That position only allows for a chest level view, straight ahead. Given that Damond was shot next to a cruiser and not in front of it, I don't think the cameras would've picked up any visual information that would be terribly useful.

Audio information would certainly add clarity to the event as it unfolded, though.

Just wanted to throw that out there.




top topics



 
61
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join