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: 25
61
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: FrostyFlakes
If youre too scared or unable to handle that...resign.



You are a former cop and military or are you referring to Noor?




posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   


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.


Well, there is the Kung Fu grip.

No video, no serious, if any, conviction. Unless something really changes with people, history shows convictions are almost never going to happen.

Remember the system has that "beyond a reasonable doubt" part in criminal cases.

Just following the trend



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

Yup, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Remember me also talking about the SCOTUS standard set to review an officers use of force? It is what the officer perceived as a threat when force was used - 20/20 hindsight cannot be used.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Me, not Noor. Sorry. Just didnt want to be seen as a cop hater.
Im quite old, times are different I know but the stuff like this is really bad. Just putting two rookies in a car on midnight shift, the Chief should be fired. (heck back in the day you dreamed of having a partner, but two rookies..no way) I started at $5.50 an hour...mostly bought your own uniforms etc. Not a complaint, I made a decent living, but man we are out of control out there too often. And most paid quite well today. Bennies etc.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

And you still can't show me that cops are treated the same as Joe/Jane citizen. Just one case...

I'm well aware of the US Constitution. It says we are to all be equal before the law. THAT is the problem here. This cop (and lots of others as well) is not being treated as a citizen would be treated. He's roaming free while his brothers and sisters in blue dig for something---anything---to make him look less guilty. Not being charged despite refusing to give a statement to the investigating authority. Joe/Jane Citizen would be sitting in jail. If you can't see that is special treatment....you are being willfully ignorant.

Just one case...where a known shooter is allowed to roam free while the cops are investigating....please. And yet it par for the course with cops.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yeah, officers should just be allowed to shoot anything and anyone they perceive a threat. I'm glad we have bright minds like yours to help guide us through difficult issues. Just let them be Judge, Jury, and Executioner. The World will love us more.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

You are a troll - In all context of this discussion. Everything you say is to troll. Even your avatar compared to what you say is a type of trolling.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 12:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: Xcathdra

You are a troll - In all context of this discussion. Everything you say is to troll. Even your avatar compared to what you say is a type of trolling.


My opinion is that member is just so deeply entrenched in the reality they've created for themselves that they're incapable of seeing it any other way other than how they must in order to remain within their view of it.

To accept any other, opposing point is a chink in the armour which becomes a dent and then a hole.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yeah, officers should just be allowed to shoot anything and anyone they perceive a threat. I'm glad we have bright minds like yours to help guide us through difficult issues. Just let them be Judge, Jury, and Executioner. The World will love us more.


If you knew anything about law enforcement, the laws, etc you would realize how ludicrous your post here is. Please, ask questions to learn instead of what your doing now.

SCOTUS set the parameters, not law enforcement.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: Xcathdra

You are a troll - In all context of this discussion. Everything you say is to troll. Even your avatar compared to what you say is a type of trolling.



Oh the irony.. You guys crack me up.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: GusMcDangerthing

and yet not once have I posted anything regarding my position on the shooting. The cop screwed up and something should happen to him in the legal system.

What I and others have been doing is trying to explain the law / legal system to help better understand it. Just because some people dont like cops / legal system doesnt mean they should disregard the parts they dont like. You learn about the system you hate in order to better counter those parts. It also helps when pushing for changes to the system.

Dont assume.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Ignore my posts. You have agreed that this is the best as you have shown yourself incapable of accepting reality outside of the bubble you've created for yourself. All the best with that but we can't have honest dialogue without open minds willing to understand.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

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.




Yet any lawyer worth a grain of salt will tell you, never talk to the police they will use anything you say against you, and secondly its not about the truth its about what you can prove.

Maybe you do believe that the court system is about the truth and nothing but the truth, but you would have be either very naïve and or lying.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 04:23 AM
link   

edit on 2-8-2017 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: getting ahead of myself, will ask again shortly



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 05:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra





What I and others have been doing is trying to explain the law / legal system to help better understand it. Just because some people dont like cops / legal system doesnt mean they should disregard the parts they dont like. You learn about the system you hate in order to better counter those parts. It also helps when pushing for changes to the system.


Lawyers, police and judges all work together right...


Its all fun and games

edit on 2-8-2017 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

I'm not certain that you understand what hard evidence means. No one is disputing that Noor shot Damon--has anyone disputed that?

As for the witnesses, one is the dead victim, one is the officer who fired and is insisting on his right to remain silent (which I wish he wasn't doing, but it's his right), and one is a third party who has zero understanding as to the motivation or reasoning behind Noor shooting Damon.

So, what, exactly, are you talking about concerning evidence, because, again, no one is disputing that the shooting occurred. But I need you to fully comprehend this--and it's actually pretty important that you do: There is not much hard evidence that points to anything other than an accident or mistaken identity on Noor's part. If and when that evidence is made known, then Noor should be charged. If that evidence remains unfound, there is no reason to detain an officer who is not charged with anything in a shooting that is unbalanced on the side of questions more than answers.

Of course you can disagree with that if you choose--I personally don't care either way. I'm just trying to explain the legal side of things a bit better. If people choose to disregard that, that's out of my control, and I'm fully aware via the OP's own behavior that people will disregard those who have a working knowledge of such things. I would just ask that you not be one of them.

Other than that, it is what it is. Like Shamrock6 noted, you seem and others seem to mistake knowledge for arrogance. If you want to ignore knowledge being handed to you, that's up to you, but that then puts you in the realm of willful ignorance, and that's not a good place to reside during a discussion.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: SlapMonkey

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

This is why I made it a point to note that I think that Noor was wrong, so that you (or someone else) wouldn't respond like this, yet it is your first sentence...

Again, and I'm in no way defending Noor's choice to shoot Damon, but you must remember that the letter of the law does not necessitate a "need" for an officer to respond with lethal force, just a subjective belief that their life (or someone else's) was in danger. I think Noor, an apparently jumpy and paranoid cop, misidentified the danger that he apparently thought was there.


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

I do not know, but like Xcathdra and others have mentioned, investigations tend to be very thorough when there is an officer-involved shooting resulting in death, so there may be zero statement making them look where they are, it could just be part of a thorough investigation to remove any unanswered questions overall.

Regardless, you missed the entire reason for my post: The possible side effects of Ambien could easily cause someone to hallucinate, be unsteady on their feet, or even act erratically and in an excited manner, all of which, combined with an apparently jumpy cop, can and sometimes does lead to outcomes like what we have in this case.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: FrostyFlakes

You say this without knowing really any of the facts surrounding the encounter with Ms. Damon. The officers would not have known the "why" behind her freaking out at the time...and I guarantee you that if someone runs up to you screaming that they're going to kill you, that's a clean shoot every day and twice on Sundays.

You and others who spout the nonsense of (paraphrased), "Well, you know the risks...if you get hurt or shot, oh well...always give the benefit of the doubt to the suspect at the time," is so goddam ridiculous that I don't know if you're even being serious or not.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
Yet any lawyer worth a grain of salt will tell you, never talk to the police they will use anything you say against you, and secondly its not about the truth its about what you can prove.

Well, to be fair, that's a constant throughout life, in any situation. The court system cannot be expected to run on a system of faith, so the next best thing is a system of evidence--a system that, over a few centuries, at least, has been chipped and whittled down to be about as good as it can be concerning what constitutes admissible evidence and what does not.

So, for certain, you are correct--evidence doesn't always equal truth, as each piece of evidence is just a piece of the puzzle. Sometimes only enough pieces are put together to show a person holding a knife with red on it, but it doesn't always show the bigger picture of whether or not that person just killed someone, or just cut a strawberry pie.

The reason to never speak to the police is, quite honestly, because you don't have to. We have the absolute right to remain silent, and it's pretty ignorant not to use that right if you're suspected of a crime, regardless of one's innocence. Of course a cop or a prosecutor or the dreaded (and more powerful, these days) court of public opinion can slice and dice and edit your statement to mean anything that they want it to. ESPECIALLY in this modern era of edits and agendas, why would anyone speak unless they had to?


Maybe you do believe that the court system is about the truth and nothing but the truth, but you would have be either very naïve and or lying.

The court system in the U.S., as designed and generally as practiced, absolutely is about finding the truth, hence the metric of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in order to find someone guilty, but it isn't always perfect, as neither you nor I am, either. Truth is the goal, but the goal is not always attainable, and yes, in relatively rare instances, the system is overtly abused. But your implication that this is the norm or the standard of the modern legal system is, as you accused others of being, very naïve (or ideologically driven...either one).



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey
I think that we are looking at the same thing but from two different directions, so even if we are standing in the same spot, what we are registering is completely different.

I understand what you are saying, it is me that is obviously not being clear.

Let's say she was hallucinating, was unsteady on her feet, even acting erratically and in an excited manner, he was armed, inside of a police car, with a partner that was in touching distance of her. His partner was calm and registered no concern, how could even a jumpy cop, that was responding to call that this woman made, reporting a concern of hers for the safety of someone else, say he felt his life was being threatened, unless he was on some kind of drug himself.

A cop would expect a person that believes she overheard someone being assaulted, and is making such a report, to be nervous, maybe even a bit jittery and erratic. If they didn't know that she was the one that made the call, the first thought would naturally be that this person was the victim of the reported crime. That would make her confused, frightened, jumpy, erratic, even hallucinatory. A cop responding to this kind of call would be expected to arrive with a mindset to rescue, not to kill.

I don't see how Noor's attorney, or the State Attorney"s office would think that trying to dig up dirt on the victim will be of benefit to this case. I think they are looking in all the wrong places.

If you are looking for a rabbit, you do not go searching the ocean.

edit on 2-8-2017 by NightSkyeB4Dawn because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join