It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 29
<< 26  27  28    30  31 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 08:59 PM

originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

This happened what is months ago now. Nothing takes this long to figure out. It's likely intentional we have heard nothing at all.

Unlike Law and Order criminal investigations involving a death take longer than an hour.

posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 10:15 PM

originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

This happened what is months ago now. Nothing takes this long to figure out. It's likely intentional we have heard nothing at all.

The initial bullsht they came up with didn't fly and when people realized that there was much more going on and that it was an extremely dodgy, dubious situation and that any official remarks from the PD were actually made up lies, they were at least smart enough to stop and say to themselves that they needed to spend time coming up with better bullsht or actually come out with the truth.

posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 10:23 PM
a reply to: GusMcDangerthing

they were at least smart enough to stop and say to themselves that they needed to spend time coming up with better bullsht or actually come out with the truth.

Well they all seem to have lost their ability to speak, because I have not been able to find any new information since around the 5th of August, and it is only about the investigators obtaining the training records of the officers involved, and the hiring a new police chief.

edit on 29-8-2017 by NightSkyeB4Dawn because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 07:12 AM
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Not really -

NEWS RELEASE - Bruce Gordon, Director of Communications July 18 2017

Bruce Gordon, Director of Communications
Jill Oliveira 651-793-2726

July 18, 2017
Update on BCA Investigation of Minneapolis Officer Involved Shooting

ST. PAUL — The Minnesota Department of Public Safety Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) today confirmed identity of the two Minneapolis Police Department officers involved in an officer involved shooting incident on Saturday, July 15. The BCA is conducting the investigation at the request of the Minneapolis Police Department.

Officer Matthew Harrity has been an officer with the Minneapolis Police Department for one year.
Officer Mohamed Noor has been an officer with the Minneapolis Police Department for 21 months.

The Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Office on Monday evening confirmed the identity of the deceased as Justine Maia Ruszczyk, 40, of 5024 Washburn Avenue South in Minneapolis. Ruszczyk died of a single gunshot wound to the abdomen.

BCA agents interviewed Officer Harrity earlier today. Officer Noor has declined to be interviewed by BCA agents at this time. Officer Noor’s attorney did not provide clarification on when, if ever, an interview would be possible.

According to the BCA’s preliminary investigation, officers Harrity and Noor responded to a 911 call from a woman now identified as Ruszczyk of a possible assault near her residence just after 11:30 p.m. Saturday. Officer Harrity was driving. Officer Noor was in the passenger seat.

The officers drove south through the alley between Washburn and Xerxes avenues toward West 51st Street in search of a suspect. All squad lights were off.

As they reached West 51st Street, Officer Harrity indicated that he was startled by a loud sound near the squad. Immediately afterward Ruszczyk approached the driver’s side window of the squad. Harrity indicated that Officer Noor discharged his weapon, striking Ruszczyk through the open driver’s side window.

The officers immediately exited the squad and provided medical attention until medical personnel arrived. Ruszczyk was pronounced dead at the scene. Both officers have been placed on standard administrative leave.

Officer Harrity told investigators that the officers saw an 18-25 year old white male who was bicycling eastbound on West 51st Street immediately before the shooting. This individual stopped at the scene and watched as the officers provided medical assistance to Ruszczyk. BCA agents would like to speak with this person, and anyone else who may have witnessed the incident. These individuals are asked to contact the BCA at 651-793-7000.

Crime scene personnel recovered a cell phone near the victim. No weapons were recovered.

Body cameras were not turned on until after the shooting incident. The squad camera was not turned on. Investigators are aware of no video or audio of the shooting. The BCA’s investigation does not determine whether a law enforcement agency policy was violated. That would be reviewed through the agency’s internal affairs process.

The BCA’s investigation into the shooting is active and ongoing. The BCA has briefed the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office about all evidence and information obtained in this investigation to date. As it does in all investigations, the BCA will present its findings without recommendations to the county attorney for review once the investigation is complete.

Frequently Asked Questions
What can BCA tell us about whether body camera policies were complied with in this case?
That question is in the jurisdiction of the City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Police Department.

Why was one officer interviewed, and the other was not?

Under the law, the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension cannot compel the testimony of either officer.
How long will the investigation take?
The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension understands the urgency of this case and is proceeding as rapidly as possible without compromising the integrity of the investigation. BCA agents conduct thorough, independent investigations of officer involved shooting incidents at the request of local law enforcement agencies across Minnesota.

Ruszczyk had called 911 to report a possible assault. What happened with that investigation?
That is a question that is in the jurisdiction of the City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Police Department.

The first officer was interviewed more than two days after the incident. Can officers talk with other people about the incident before talking to investigators?
Each agency has its own policies. There are no laws restricting an individual’s right to speak to others after an incident.

When can we get the video and other information from the investigation?
Under Minnesota law, certain information related to an investigation becomes public when all investigative and court processes are concluded. The law says investigative data is confidential or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active.

What’s left to do in the investigation before it is turned over to the county attorney?
Unless someone else comes forward, the BCA does not have additional interviews scheduled at this time. Forensic testing is being completed and all evidence must be examined. It is common for a county attorney to request follow-up information when reviewing a case.

What is BCA responsible for and what is MPD responsible for?
The BCA’s investigation is limited to determining the facts of the shooting incident. Any review of department policy, including use of body cameras, would be done through the Minneapolis Police Department internal affairs process.

Why did the officer not agree to be interviewed?
That question should be directed to the officer or his attorney. The BCA cannot compel an officer to provide an interview.

Can the 911 call be released and by which agency?
Minnesota law (Minn. Statute 13.82 subd. 4) says the audio recording of a 911 call is not public; however, a written transcript of the audio recording is public, in this case, from the Minneapolis Police Department.

The hold up is on evidence processing (which includes the medical examiner and any additional tests he has requested the state crime lab conduct). Evidence processing, again, is not like the tv show law and order. It can take months in order to get submitted evidence processed and results returned. While its possible to expedite evidence processing it still means a significant delay.

Once everything is completed - the investigation, interviews, evidence collection / processing / returns etc etc it all is then sent to the prosecuting attorneys office for the county this occurred in for review and follow up. The PA generally have their own investigative staff and will follow up on areas the PA feels are lacking.

Only then will they decide if charges will be brought against the officer or if he will be cleared.

As a reminder - the standard established by SCOTUS for reviewing an officers use of force is what did the officer perceive the moment forced was used. 20/20 hindsight cannot be used when reviewing officer actions. That standard must be used by the PA when reviewing the possibility of charges.

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 07:20 AM
Graham vs. Connnor

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court determined that an objective reasonableness standard should apply to a civilian's claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of his person.

**Important to note / understand - Anytime a person is shot by law enforcement, it is considered a technical seizure under the 4th amendment**

Court's Opinion
Graham held that determining the "reasonableness" of a seizure "requires a careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual... against the attempt at"countervailing"and under the guise of governmental interests, being at stake." These rights of which, are well documented, and established,of the people,by the people, and for the people,of the United States of America. It acknowledged, "Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it." However, it then noted, "Because the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application," the test's "proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case."

Because the petitioner claimed that it was his fourth amendment that was violated, the court had to look at the case with a different set of rules. Because of this, the court had to decide under the objective reasonableness of the case. The took into account whether the officers’ actions were reasonable in regard to the prior information the officer had witnessed. The court decided that the officers’ actions were appropriate for the circumstances and that the use of force was not malicious or purposely used to cause harm. [2]

The Court then outlined a non-exhaustive list of factors for balancing an individual's rights and an officer's: "the severity of the crime at issue," "whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others," "whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight."

The Graham Court cautioned, "The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight." It also reinforced, "As in other Fourth Amendment contexts... the 'reasonableness' inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers' actions are 'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation."

The Court rejected the notion that the judiciary could use the Due Process Clause instead of the Fourth Amendment in analyzing excessive force claims: "Because the Fourth Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against this sort of physically intrusive governmental conduct, that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of 'substantive due process,' must be the guide for analyzing these claims."

Additional factors that may be looked at:

Since Graham, the lower federal courts have occasionally supplemented its three factors with such matters as whether a warrant was issued, the plaintiff resisted or was armed, more than one arrestee or officer was involved, other dangerous or exigent circumstances existed at the time of the arrest as well as the nature of the arrest charges and the availability of alternative methods of capturing or subduing a suspect.[3]

Food for thought to those who might care about the underlying legal issues surrounding this type of case. The "objective reasonableness standard" that applies is from a "reasonable officer's point of view" and not a civilians view.
edit on 30-8-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 10:48 AM
a reply to: Xcathdra
I commented that I have found no new information regarding this case since August 5th.

Your post is regarding information available around July 18th.

And the information around the fifth gave no insight to how the case was proceeding, outside of the fact that they had obtained the training records of the officers involved. The only other information was about the city hiring of the new police chief.

I found it interesting that they made such a big deal over the race of the new police chief. It made it look like they have a problem that they think race will fix, over ability.

I am not saying the person they chose isn't capable of the job. He is probably excellent at his job, but I think it does him a disservice to make his race such a factor in his hiring.

It is just my opinion, but it seems they realize they have a problem and whatever that problem is, it may have played a role in the case, so they are trying to clean up the mess before they allow any more public scrutiny.

edit on 30-8-2017 by NightSkyeB4Dawn because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 11:02 AM
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

The point of my posts was to explain why no one is hearing anything new right now. We are in a holding pattern until forensic evidence is processed and all info is sent to the PA for review.

posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 07:23 PM

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Last update I could find was on August 8th and it just skirted over that the investigators obtained the training records of the officers involved.

I understand the need for detail, but is there enough strangeness going on around this case that it takes this long before they can resolve this case?

Either they are banking on our short memories and hoping we will forget about it, God knows there are enough cases in the past that we have allowed them to bury, or there is something really wrong about this case.

I think that's exactly what they are doing; hoping some new story takes our attention, and we forget about this one. Remember the guy with all those guns, found dead in his car? We never did get all the details on that one, and it was super weird!! Same is likely to happen here.

I can understand that they have to protect the case, but it's frustrating. When we know things are covered up, it's hard ot know what to think.

Training records, eh? So, will they blame this on poor training, and try to cover some other crime that way?

posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 08:12 PM
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Well they have a new case in Utah that is getting a lot of attention. Not sure that it will help them in any way because this was another innocent female that fell victim to a police officer that they want to claim was improperly trained.

And guess what. There is another investigation that will be dragged out in an attempt to veil the obvious and hope we forget.

posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 07:26 PM
All in all what's happening is mass disregard for the public by law enforcement officers, who ought to be referred to as public safety officers since they are meant to work for the state and the state is the people and not the government.

They and our governments have this all ass over tits and one way or another it will balance. Don't be a 'law enforcement officer' or caught defending this sort of thuggery when that time comes...

posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 08:45 PM
Aug 29th, 2017 - Charging decision expected in police shooting by year's end

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A prosecutor in Minnesota says he expects to decide by the end of the year whether to charge a Minneapolis police officer who fatally shot a woman who called 911 about a possible sexual assault in her neighborhood.

Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman said in a statement that his office has received public pressure to make a decision about the death of Justine Damond, a 40-year-old Australian native killed by Officer Mohamed Noor last month. Damond had called police to report a possible assault and met officers in an alley behind her home where Noor shot her. Noor has not commented publicly about why he shot Damond.

"We have received some e-mails and phone calls from members of the community demanding that we charge the officer immediately and ascribing all kinds of nefarious reasons as to why we haven't done so," Freeman said. "The truth is, we are following the same procedure we have with the three previous officer-involved shootings."

An investigation and review of a police shooting typically takes four to six months, Freeman said.

The fatal shooting of Damond, who was engaged to be married, has drawn international attention since the July 15 shooting.

Freeman broke precedent with the standard practice of having a grand jury to decide whether officers would be charged in police shootings when he reviewed the death of Jamar Clark, who was fatally shot by police in November 2015. The two officers involved in that case were not prosecuted.

"We will follow that practice in this case," Freeman said in his statement. "So, once the file is turned over to our office, I will thoroughly review the investigation with several of our most senior prosecutors and make a decision."

posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 06:36 PM
Police union boss defends killer cop

A TOP police officer has written an extraordinary letter in defence of the man who shot dead Australian woman Justine Damond.

It would be appropriate for me to comment on this but at this point I'm just speechless and you can read for yourselves.

posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 06:53 PM
a reply to: GusMcDangerthing

He should of just kept his damn mouth shut.. this only create's more anger and division..I'm sure he doesn't care about any of that anyway.
edit on 14-9-2017 by vonclod because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 06:54 PM
a reply to: GusMcDangerthing

Yea I read the entire letter (not just the portions in your link) and it's not really a defense of the cop so much as it is telling the prosecutor to stick to prosecuting cases.

A prosecutor shouldn't be offering an opinion on a case that's sitting on his desk waiting for him to make a decision on. If nothing else, he just handed grounds for appeal to Noor on a platter, because Noor's attorneys can attack his statements to the press as proof of bias. Will it work? I dunno, but I can just about guarantee it'll be attempted.

It is beyond stupid for a prosecutor to go talk to the press about a case that he's supposed to be deciding whether to prosecute or not. Once he decides to bring charges? Sure. Once he decides not to bring charges? Sure, have at it. But while it's sitting on his desk? No. Just no.

Beyond that, the letter is more about charging Noor because Noor deserves to be charged. Not because everybody feels bad that a "nice young woman" is the one that got killed this time. I didn't see much in that letter that's a defense of Noor's actions.

posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 07:20 PM
a reply to: Shamrock6

I read the entire letter, also. You can link it if you like but I was able to find it without much help so I think everyone else can also do that.

I'm not passing comment or judgement on the prosecutor, you have quite clearly and plainly. I am however on the police union and the tone is different to that which you are asserting.

posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 07:33 PM
a reply to: GusMcDangerthing

Tone is interpretation. You interpret it your way, and I'll interpret it mine.

And yes, I am passing judgement on a prosecutor running to the press about an active investigation his office is conducting. Because it's monumentally stupid. No amount of dismissal on your part changes that.

I'll also pass judgment on the union chief. He could've called the prosecutor on his comments in a better manner. And he didn't need to resort to the hyperbole of "cops are being killed more than ever" given that this year is only slightly ahead of last year, and far from the highs of ten years ago.

Unlike you apparently are, I'm willing to call both sides on their shenanigans.

posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 07:43 PM
a reply to: Shamrock6

Not necessarily. Tone is what it is and you will recognize the same tone that I will, it is interpretation of the tone through our bias which varies. That might seem the same as what you said, but the difference, although nuanced, is rather noticeable when you look at it objectively.

You tone for example, we both know is accusatory and aggressive. You will negate it and pass it off as being necessary to pass your point and I simply find it boorish and typical. An objective reader would find it aggressive none-the-less because that's what it is.

In context, this guy of course should be defending his union member, but in the wider context he betrays his bias and in the current social and political climate it just doesn't look good. He made a silly move which, as you pointed out, is just as silly as the actions of the prosecutor.

posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 08:12 PM
a reply to: GusMcDangerthing

The Union boss making a comment against a member to the media is not close to being on the same level as a prosecutor commenting in one direction or the other on a case he is supposed to review for charges.

Now, depending on what direction the PA goes, his decision will fall under a cloud of suspicion by both sides and in the end it could very well cause the officer to walk free, even if he is charged and convicted, by proprietorial misconduct. Once that occurs any type of retrial becomes a problem since it looks like the entire prosecution is based on politics and not the law.

As a prime example look at the 6 Baltimore PD officers. The PA for Baltimore had her public speech announcing the charges and her personal opinion used against her with complaints filed over her conduct. The officers that faced trial were found not guilty, resulting in the remaining charges against the officers who didnt go to trial being dropped.

posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 08:13 PM
a reply to: Xcathdra

So She's was a 40yo Australian "Native" was she?

Funny, she wouldn't be referred to as a Native in Australia......

So if she was American, would she be an American Native?

Yes, Just semantics....

Interesting info tho, So the Police driver was a cop for only 12 months, and the shooter? for 21 months....both rookies still really.

Im wondering if there may be a bit of "Rookie" protection going on??

Did the Driver do the shooting in a pannick? then the Somalian "Native" took the gun and they decided He would take the blame, as he is the guiding light, black, muslim, blah blah perfect example of a copper.?

In the Op, wasnt it found that no gun residue was in the squad car, defying logic, if it was fired inside the car?
Or if it was fired outside the car?? In a pannick by the driver...........?.

I wonder if they fully tested the driver for gun powder residue.

Maybe, the "Shooter" is taking the wrap for yelling out, "Shes Got a Gun" they may have mistaken her phone for a weapon, because all law abiding White Women from Australia carry weapons........Everyone knows that....

This whole episode is starting to Stink even more, as time goes by...

edit on 14-9-2017 by gort51 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 08:23 PM
a reply to: gort51

Laws in the US apply equally to anyone in this country, regardless of their nationality / citizenship status = due process.

Driver was a year and officer who fired like 22 months.

How much do you know about gun residue and how it disperses? Law and Order doesnt get it right.. If they did the show would be a lot longer than an hour.

Forensics can determine the angle a person was shot at which can tell us where the shooter was when the gun was discharged. That in turn becomes contingent upon how many shots are fired, how many hit, and what the body was doing as it was hit (falling / twisting / slumping / etc).

new topics

top topics

<< 26  27  28    30  31 >>

log in