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: 24
61
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Reminder.....



Stay On Topic.


You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!




posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

It goes to being able to demonstrate that the officer was not 100% at fault for what occurred. If the defense can demonstrate actions taken by the victim were somehow related to say medication, mental state, etc he can argue she left the officer no choice but to respond in the manner he did. It can create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury and as we know in our criminal legal system it takes an agreement by all jurors in order to convict.

It also opens the door for the defense to argue that jurors can be allowed to consider lesser charges than what he might be charged with. As a general example if he is charged with murder, the defense could argue for the judge to allow jurors to consider a lesser degree murder charge / manslaughter / reckless endangerment etc etc etc.

The purpose of a defense attorney is to secure the best possible outcome for their client. Sometimes that means going after a lesser charge that would reduce the amount of time his client would have to spend in prison.

If law enforcement doesn't cover all bases then the defense will have a field day presenting alternate theories of why it occurred. It means the prosecution cant refute those alternate theories because they dont have the information to counter them.

"IF" ambien was located in her residence, then its now on record. Autopsies also include toxicological testing, which looks for drugs / chemicals / etc. Now, if the toxicological test shows a clean blood stream, then any ambien argument made in mitigation by the defense can be refute by the prosecution.

"IF" ambien was located in her system and she had a prescription for it then it can help the defense, provided they can get an expert witness to testify the presence of the drug affected her that night.

"IF" ambien was located in her system and a search of her residence shows no ambien, in addition to her medical records showing she was never prescribed it, then the defense can argue a theory in their clients favor.

The purpose of a law enforcement investigation is not to help out one party or the other. Its to determine what occurred, why it occurred, what it occurred with, who it occurred to and who is responsible for it. You follow the truth, regardless if you like where it leads or not.

The purpose of the courts is a-

"The courtroom is a crucible. In it, we burn away irrelevancies until we reach the truth, for all time."

edit on 31-7-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

Why bother comparing apples and oranges?

You've either completely missed my point, or you just plain don't want to see it. Either way, further discussion about it is a waste of time.



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Then you should watch trial TV more often, or visit your local courthouse.

Defense attorneys will do just about anything they can to help their client. Including smearing the victim.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

The Officer was 100% at fault.

After reading your posts, I have determined it's best not to feed in to your trolling nature.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


Can you in all honesty tell me that the court system is about finding the truth ?





edit on 1-8-2017 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: truth hurts




posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: SR1TX

All the more reason to have a bulletproof investigation, wouldn't you say?



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: diggindirt

But, if one looks at it in the context of a) a shooting investigation and b) a human resources issue, I think if one stays objective about it, one could probably understand a little better.

Don't forget that pesky "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" aspect to things. That tends to go a long way as well, especially when there's not much hard evidence to provide a reason to detain someone indefinitely.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Well, when you look at the major side effects of Ambien, you see that the list includes:

Major Side Effects

You should check with your doctor immediately if any of these side effects occur when taking zolpidem:

Less common:
• Clumsiness or unsteadiness
• confusion

• depression

Rare
• Difficulty with breathing
• dizziness, lightheadedness, or fainting
• falling
• fast heartbeat
• seeing, hearing, or feeling things that are not there
• skin rash
• swelling of the face
• trouble sleeping
• unusual excitement, nervousness, or irritability
• wheezing

My point in posting this is that, if she were on Ambien at the time, and was having any or all of the bolded major side effects, this could account for the belief that somebody was being raped, yet there being nobody in the alley or that has come forward as being the victim. It could also explain why she may have slapped the police cruiser when she was walking up to or chasing it down--she may have been dizzy or unsteady on her feet. And the "unusual excitement, nervousness, or irritability" may pay heed as to why Noor (who I still absolutely believe was wrong for pulling the trigger) may have shot her.

But, again, these are just speculations as to why a defense attorney would bring up the use of Ambien by Ms. Damon, and I'm in no way saying that all of these side effects were happening to her at the time that she called for and encountered the police. I do, however, believe that there was no on getting raped in the alley, and that she misidentified whatever noise she was hearing at the time.

edit on 1-8-2017 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: GusMcDangerthing

BLUE LIVES MURDER, GET OVER YOURSELF AND SUPPORT YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS

Citizens murder, too...much more often than police do. Don't bring logical fallacies to the table, please. Some of us are actually trying to civilly and logically discuss this particular incident without turning it into a soapbox for police haters or lovers.

That goes for magnetik, too--you can't make over-reaching comments on either side of the equation.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: Xcathdra

The Officer was 100% at fault.

After reading your posts, I have determined it's best not to feed in to your trolling nature.


Speaking of trolling... Ignorance is a choice my friend.

I was explaining why police were looking at the victim and her residence but apparently you cant move beyond your bias to understand that. We were explaining what aggravating and mitigating factors are and how they play into a defense strategy.

Next time read and understand the context of the conversation before performing your 100 meter rush to judgement.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Xcathdra


Can you in all honesty tell me that the court system is about finding the truth ?


Yes it is.

As with anything that occurs with human involvement - its not perfect.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: diggindirt

Why bother comparing apples and oranges?

You've either completely missed my point, or you just plain don't want to see it. Either way, further discussion about it is a waste of time.


You're absolutely correct---comparing the rights of Joe/Jane Public to those of the protected LEO class is just silly. I'll not do it again. You and a couple of others on this board have made it quite clear that you believe you have rights that don't exist for Joe or Jane. You can't show where anyone except a police officer is allowed to roam free while a murder investigation is on-going. That kind of arrogance is why your profession has become a target.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: diggindirt

But, if one looks at it in the context of a) a shooting investigation and b) a human resources issue, I think if one stays objective about it, one could probably understand a little better.

Don't forget that pesky "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" aspect to things. That tends to go a long way as well, especially when there's not much hard evidence to provide a reason to detain someone indefinitely.


LOL! Three people were present for this shooting. One of them fired three shots into another. The other observed this behavior. The recipient of the bullets can't testify as a result of being shot to death.

Objective????????? Not much hard evidence to detain someone???? Oh, I forgot that eye-witness testimony isn't reliable so the non-shooting officer's testimony isn't worth squat. Have the investigators "lost" the gun used in this killing?



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt


You're absolutely correct


I know.


I'll not do it again.


Yet here you are, doing it again.


you have rights that don't exist for Joe or Jane.


I have a job Joe and Jane Public don't have. I'm entitled to the same due process, legally and professionally, as anybody else is. If you think that makes me a "protected class" then I can't help your lack of constitutional knowledge and case law on the subject.


That kind of arrogance is why your profession has become a target.


You seem to be confusing "knowing the law" with "arrogance." That's why we hold facebook lawyers like you in disdain.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

And which one of those side effects listed made it necessary for Noor to shoot her?

If she was dancing naked in that alley, and singing who let the dogs out at the top of her voice, it still would not make sense for Noor to shoot her.

I get that they are trying to come up with obstacles to plug the holes that Noor may try to dig, but where is commonsense?

What is he saying that is making them look in this direction?



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Noor is a poster child for the department relations to public, no way they let this get too bad.

Not saying it right, not saying it 100% sure, but I suspect the outcome won't be what people think.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

You are missing the point. He was pointing out side effect of ambien (as the example being used) and how a defense attorney can use that information to suggest an alternate theory as to what happened. It allows the defense to essentially shift some of the blame off of his client.

By obtaining all information and verifying it (medical records etc for this example) it allows the prosecution to explore / research that element and come up with a way to shut it down as a factor in court, strengthening the prosecutions case.

The number 1 rule for being a lawyer is to never ask a question you dont know the answer to. A thorough investigation actually benefits both sides, allowing the prosecution to refute arguments and allowing the defense to provide alternate theories.

As for commonsense it is being used in the confines of a police investigation. We do not prosecute. Our function is investigatory.

If she were naked in the alley dancing the first thoughts would be the person is possibly intoxicated / suffering from a mental break or on some type of narcotic. As for shooting it would all depend on what exactly she is doing, whats in the immediate area that could be used as a weapon, how many bystanders are present, is she listening to verbal commands / attempts to communicate etc etc? Contrary to popular belief and tv, a person does not have to be armed with a gun or knife to be considered a deadly threat.

As for what he is saying - i think his lack of communication is whats driving this. If he wont cooperate (and legally he doesnt have to) then you look at everything you possibly can to start ruling things out.

For example was she on ambien at the time this event occurred and did it play a factor into the shooting.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

even if she ran up screaming...I will kill you mofos....he should not have shot.

even if she was jumping on his squad car....no need to shoot.

LE today is in sad shape....takes thousands of dollars and 5 cops to handle a little ole lady with a stick. Just walk/run up to the lady and grab the stick.

The mentality is take zero clhances. # that...you are getting paid...if in an odd situation you are harmed or killed, well thats part of the risk. Otherwise put these cops on minimum wage. Afraid of risk = minimum wage. Willing to risk danger and give citizen benefit of doubt = $$$.

This case though is likely more about his problems with women & poor training and hiring. His partner didnt shoot.

Former LE and former military...believe me I love the job they do out there overall...but if my family life is treated like I see happening to others out there....sorry my family safety comes before any of my cop buddies. If my daughter freaks out on her ambien or whatever...just secure her and bring her home & file report. If youre too scared or unable to handle that...resign.


edit on 1-8-2017 by FrostyFlakes because: spelling etc



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
Noor is a poster child for the department relations to public, no way they let this get too bad.

Not saying it right, not saying it 100% sure, but I suspect the outcome won't be what people think.


Well the Police Chief lost her job because the Mayor played politics by showcasing this officer, his background, religion and the community he patrolled in and it blew up in her face. The Mayor fired (asked her to resign) during her contentious press conference. She thought the resignation would quell the community outrage she was experiencing and instead it only intensified back onto her.

As for outcome I dont think we have enough evidence to guess one way or the other.



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join