Minneapolis Officer Mohamed Noor & Partner Are Lying. - Update

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

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.

Not in any civilized country.

a reply to: GusMcDangerthing

Breathtaking insight.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: GusMcDangerthing

Breathtaking insight.

Well, it wasn't meant to be but I'm glad you found it so.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
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.

Well, here's the problem--we don't know if he was intoxicated himself, but from having a few people in my life who have irrational fears (hell, I don't even like heights, so I can't point the blame very far), it easy to see how people who are not on drugs can overreact. Like, sometimes I think that if my wife had a pistol within arms reach, she might shoot every spider that she sees.

She's not on drugs, but at the same time, she reacts irrationally.

But I'm not going to engage in the speculation game concerning an absolute reason as to why Noor would respond the way he did--it's as big a mystery to me as it is to you. But, here's how it went down, as I've seen it reported:

Officer Matthew Harrity, who was driving, and Noor, in the front passenger seat, arrived at the scene. They drove south through the alley between Washburn and Xerxes avenues S., toward W. 51st Street, with the squad lights turned off. As they reached the street, “Harrity indicated that he was startled by a loud sound near the squad,” according to the preliminary BCA investigation.

Damond approached the driver’s side window of the squad car “immediately afterward,” according to the statement. Noor shot from the passenger seat, across his partner and through the window, striking Damond in the abdomen. She died at the scene 20 minutes later.

Star Tribune

It's not really THAT impossible to conceive that a jumpy cop would fire on someone without thought (known as "react" instead of "respond") who appears immediately after "a loud sound" at the cruiser's window, seemingly unexpectedly. He seems to be a jumpy, reactive officer, and with that in mind, I can see the "why" behind it, even if I don't see it as being justified.

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 think that an officer responding to this particular call would be arriving with the mindset to investigate, not to rescue OR kill.

Regardless, my assumption is that neither officer knew that Damond, at the time Noor fired, was the person who called 911--I don't think that they had much time to know anything, even to know if she was behaving erratically. I think that this shooting was an untrained reaction (versus a response) to a face immediately appearing in the open window of the cruiser directly after hearing a loud noise. Sadly, I think Ms. Damon's life was lost due to piss-poor trigger discipline.

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.

This just tells me that you've never worked side by side with attorneys before. The reason has been noted multiple times in this thread--if you refuse to believe the reasoning in those answers, there's not much that I can do to make you see it at this point.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

This just tells me that you've never worked side by side with attorneys before. The reason has been noted multiple times in this thread--if you refuse to believe the reasoning in those answers, there's not much that I can do to make you see it at this point.

You are right, I don't want to believe police officers that have shot and killed innocent people are placed under microscopes to ferret out any microscopic chance that they are justified in killing those citizens, even when all logic leans clearly to a unjustified reactionary shooting, and indicates that the officer never should have been on the force in the first place.

They shift the investigation to how the victim may have contributed to her death while, while the attention should be on the fact that Noor is reported to have been a "jumpy and paranoid cop", and never should have been issued a gun and a badge.

I am not ignoring that fact the you think Noor was wrong. I am just saying that trying to find dirt on the victim is also wrong, since nothing she did prior to being shot has any bearing on the fact that Noor shot and killed her. Regardless to any excuse he can come up with, Noor is the guilty one here, and no amount of dirt they dig up is going to bury that fact. So hanging out the victim's dirty laundry is unjustified and just plain wrong.

I'm amazed there hasn't been any movement on this case....Can anyone shed any light on the current investigation of these officers? Have they released the autopsy yet?? Why is this being slow rolled?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I don't think you understand or the other trolls defending trigger happy officers or a corrupt legal system understand.

Cops do not shoot to kill in many other countries in the world, like they do here. There is clearly a mental deficiency in law enforcement that has lead to think kind of thinking where anyone that could possibly harm you deserves a bullet.

Any officer in a mindset other than this needs to be removed from Law Enforcement altogether.

Here is the efficiency test I have designed, a 5th grader can comprehend it.



If you at any point feel, as law enforcement, or as a citizen, that this guy needed a bullet and would get one if you were present, please turn in your firearm, you fail AND your a P****y.

a reply to: SR1TX

I dont think anyone is defending him and reading the posts can confirm that.

Cops shoot to stop the threat, not shoot to kill.

Mental deficiency? lol

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
You are right, I don't want to believe police officers that have shot and killed innocent people are placed under microscopes to ferret out any microscopic chance that they are justified in killing those citizens, even when all logic leans clearly to a unjustified reactionary shooting, and indicates that the officer never should have been on the force in the first place.

But therein lies the shortcomings in that way of thinking--investigations and the legal system aren't based on your subjective feelings, regardless of your perceptions of the limited amount of evidence available from which you are basing your feelings and opinions.

They shift the investigation to how the victim may have contributed to her death while, while the attention should be on the fact that Noor is reported to have been a "jumpy and paranoid cop", and never should have been issued a gun and a badge.

But how do you know this without investigating. If an investigation does not include every imaginable angle and possibility, you will get mistrials in trial, or findings of "not guilty" when people should be found guilty because a piss-poor investigation provided reasonable doubt.

This is what I meant when I noted that it's obvious that you have never worked with attorneys or, seemingly, ever worked in the legal field at all that would allow you to understand this. It's not necessarily a shortcoming, but rather the norm of society (which is good--it means most people haven't had experience in a courtroom), but if you refuse to understand this after it has been laid out numerous times by multiple people who do or have work(ed) in the legal or law-enforcement fields, you're basically employing willful ignorance at that point, which is never a good thing.

I am just saying that trying to find dirt on the victim is also wrong, since nothing she did prior to being shot has any bearing on the fact that Noor shot and killed her. Regardless to any excuse he can come up with, Noor is the guilty one here, and no amount of dirt they dig up is going to bury that fact. So hanging out the victim's dirty laundry is unjustified and just plain wrong.

Again, please review my comment about the need for thorough investigations to alleviate reasonable doubt, because the court of public opinion isn't the end-all to, or even a relevant part of, the legal system in the U.S. Yes, the fact is that Noor shot and killed her--this is not in dispute by anyone.

The question is they why behind it, and you don't get to that answer with half-assed investigations, regardless if someone's "dirty laundry" gets exposed.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The guy needs to be in jail pending his trial. No one cares about the badge thing. I myself don't give a S*** about his sensibilities, mindset that night, or otherwise.

Any normal person would be in jail who shot in cold blood which this maniac clearly did. What is difficult to comprehend about this for you? There is no defense for this.

Do you honestly think that if I were a normal person that killed an officer for startling me in the night in an alley way that I would simply be "Let go" and refuse questioning because they would deem it a clean kill and could not determine my mindset yet or what happened?

Please guy, you're a trollolololol.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

There is a difference between real evidence and conjecture of which no distinction is made in court. In other words, going into someones home to look for evidence as to why your officer murdered someone in cold blood is conjecture to your cause which the jury is going to laugh at because that's not real evidence, as you say.

Trying to assassinate the character of this woman I think you will find the defense will be left wanting.

This is you:

originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I don't think you understand or the other trolls defending trigger happy officers or a corrupt legal system understand.

And this is me, from a prior comment made just today:

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I think that this shooting was an untrained reaction (versus a response) to a face immediately appearing in the open window of the cruiser directly after hearing a loud noise. Sadly, I think Ms. Damon's life was lost due to piss-poor trigger discipline.

Do you see the disconnect from your claims versus actual reality? That's a serious question, because nowhere have I defended corruption in the legal system (in fact, I've numerously stated otherwise) nor have I defended Noor's actions. So, are you willfully ignorant and just trying to be a complete ass, or are you seriously having trouble with reading comprehension?

Cops do not shoot to kill in many other countries in the world, like they do here. There is clearly a mental deficiency in law enforcement that has lead to think kind of thinking where anyone that could possibly harm you deserves a bullet.

Here's just one of your many problems in your thinking: This above comment is called a logical fallacy, where you're taking the most extreme cases that are not the norm concerning U.S. LEOs and linking that behavior to the profession as a whole and basing an ignorant argument on that illogical conclusion.

But, I know, I know...I'm just trolling and not contributing anything of substance to the thread...

If you at any point feel, as law enforcement, or as a citizen, that this guy needed a bullet and would get one if you were present, please turn in your firearm, you fail AND your a P****y.

No offense, but you calling someone a "P****y" isn't exactly intimidating.

That said, IMO, once that jackass removed his sunglasses, he should have been taken down to the ground, subdued and detained, as anyone who knows anything knows that this is a threatening motion, coupled with his body language, verbal belligerence, and the like. So, no, that guy should not have been shot, but if you'd like to ease your mind, you can look on YouTube and find many instances where LEOs get into physical altercations, subdue and arrest the suspect, and there is no gun fire...yes, even here in *gasp* America.

Please see my comment above concerning the same logical fallacy used here. That's twice in one comment!

originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: SlapMonkey

There is a difference between real evidence and conjecture of which no distinction is made in court. In other words, going into someones home to look for evidence as to why your officer murdered someone in cold blood is conjecture to your cause which the jury is going to laugh at because that's not real evidence, as you say.

And here we are again, with you demonstrating your severe lack of knowledge of how investigations and the legal system actually works.

But I quit speaking directly to you a while ago in this thread for a reason...I will honor that plan from this comment forward.

Trying to assassinate the character of this woman I think you will find the defense will be left wanting.

I agree, but having only gotten coffee for a defense attorney during my paralegal years, I learned that defense attorneys will try anything to shift the blame, as has already been noted more than once on this thread (and is something that you should remember so that you don't keep beating the same dead horse over and over).

Here's the problem with people who think like you are: In some investigations, the investigatory agency can't investigate enough things to appease the court of public opinion (mainly because it results in negating the presumptuous conclusion to which they arrived via a knee-jerk reaction), and then in others, like this, the rally cry is that the police are investigating too much and it doesn't make sense. I've seen both just on this thread alone.

The funny thing is, I think the motivation for concern in each of those instances is the same: You're holding out hope that the evidence supports your conclusion, and if there's a possibility that it won't or if it actually begins to counter it, the moaning and groaning commences about the investigation being (not thorough enough) (too in-depth).

You can only pick one, but please use a number-two pencil.

Now to recommence my plan to avoid such petty bickering...

a reply to: SR1TX

He is not being a troll, he is telling it from a LEO perspective, procedure/legality wise..not saying I agree but he is giving his informed opinion, and he is allowed that..what these discussions are about..right wrong or indifferent.
It is what it is. I hope Noor gets found guilty of murder, he is a coward at best.

a reply to: SR1TX

Your argument has been addressed several times now by multiple people so I refer you back to one of those responses.

a reply to: vonclod

From the LEO's perspective, officer Noor shot and killed in cold blood.

There is no other perspective.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Here is the problem with you:

Officer Noor killed in cold blood, Justine's home and what is in it is inconsequential to the act. Only a corrupt law enforcement agency that can sway a judge to signing BS search warrants has such power to initiate such investigations and then try and use that as evidence, WHATEVER may be in there, as a means for getting the officer that committed a murder in cold blood, off the hook.

You are seriously sick.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
I think I understand your way of thinking now. I have done some additional research on this case, and though I still believe that Noor is guilty of killing Justine unjustly, due to his overreaction to the situation, I do understand now, why they are checking her home and the alleyway for any possible evidence.

I have heard a bunch of unsettling accusations that will make this case a bigger problem for the State of Minnesota, a place that I love by the way, then was first expected.

Noor's family is trying to do damage control and is saying he is innocent. They offer that it was just all a terrible mistake. He is not talking but they are, though they say they are limited in what they can say.

Others are saying they thought she was shot somewhere else, closer to her home and moved by the officers to another site to avoid the finding of damning evidence. So I see why they are checking everything, because the information being put out there is all over the place. It seems the only ones that know the truth and what really happened aren't talking ot not saying much.

I understand the reason for some of the actions of the investigators that may seem illogical, but I still condemn the slandering of this woman, and the reporting of her personal life, just to distract and obfuscate Noor's guilt in the shooting. I blame the media for presenting that dog and pony show.

I am not blaming the system here. I am blaming what we have allowed the system to become. This should be about whether Noor was justified in shooting Justine. I do understand that the Defense attorneys can appear to be absolute jackasses at times, but in the end this should be about justice. Unfortunately, the American citizens don't have much faith in the system anymore because they feel it has failed them. I hope this case will not further disappoint them.

I think we are more in agreement than disagreement, I just am not as understanding of the process as you.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
I blame the media for presenting that dog and pony show.

As well you should, because the media misrepresents or jumps to conclusions or puts bad (unsubstantiated) information out there for everyone to chew on and spin nearly from the word 'go' in all of these types of instances. This, right here, is where the bulk of the problem lies, because (rightfully so) the average person relies on the media for information since we all cannot constantly bombard the PR department of the police and don't have the credentials to investigate much further on our own.

When we get--let's call it "tainted"--information and that's all that we have to run with, it's very, very hard to be patient and wait. I think that the only reason that I can do so is because I know how long these types of investigations can take, coupled with knowing the value of substantiated information (assuming that the end result seems plausible to me, but that's another issue altogether). Also, with the whole paralegal background and including my job now (dealing with federal evidence and translating it for use in court for juries), I understand how important it is to wait for all of the foreseeable evidence to make determinations, because I hate having to redo work because something changes as additional evidence comes in, or judges toss out bad evidence, or the like.

Again, I'm in a unique position to have that patience, but at the same time, I empathize with those not in a similar position. But, my empathy ends where willful ignorance begins, so I wholeheartedly appreciate your efforts to understand where I'm coming from--you surprised me in a good way, as this is not the norm on ATS anymore.

I think we are more in agreement than disagreement, I just am not as understanding of the process as you.

Yup.

I appears, IMO, that Noor thought they would be in a deadly situation and shot because someone appears and that person was expected by him to be a danger. From what is reported if correct, he shoots about the time she walks up.