Minneapolis Officer Mohamed Noor & Partner Are Lying. - Update

a reply to: DAVID64

If you actually had any, you'd know that the muzzle blast from a handgun, even in close quarters, will not deafen you to an extent you can't hear at all. It will cause your ears to ring and impair your ability to hear, but you will not be totally deaf.


I think this is where the distinction without a difference is being made and I apologize as it may have been I that did not clarify, in time, the point of it.

When you listen to the radio call, notice the officer is asked, very calmly by dispatch, if he can confirm the address as 51st and Washburn. Only the disturbing part is Officer Harrity displayed no auditory impairment, even a little, when responding. He did not even seem startled. Maybe you and others, can answer per your training, how long does that ring last for? It may sound funny being from Texas, but I do not own or care for a firearm, too much trouble, so I have no idea.

Thoughts on this ?

a reply to: SRPrime

Infact; most people think there is no reason to own a .22, but the reason is, it's the only safe firearm to discharge in enclosed spaces without hearing protection.

I would point out than anyone who believed that is an idiot. Present company included.

www.m1911.org...

.22 long rifle pistol - 152 db

9mm pistol - 160 db

Have their been any White Lives Matter protests? There would have been BLM protests/riots/looting etc if the circumstances were reversed.

a reply to: SR1TX

Police tend to carry either 9mm or .40 cal and both of those produce a nice bang but not so much as say an AK. Now when fired in an enclosed space such as a car that bang will be amplified. I have had a .38 fired across me as I was sitting in the passenger seat and that is a smaller caliber and my ears were ringing pretty good for at least 30 mins after that fading progressively . Also like most people who have had a gun fired in close proximity to their head I was speaking loudly or louder than I normally would as it was hard to tell the volume in my own voice. So for me based on personal experience I would say that having a gun discharged that close to your head in a car would at the very least cause a person to speak at an elevated volume comparatively.

a reply to: SR1TX

I've been standing right next to someone, at an indoor shooting range, when they starting shooting. They didn't know I wasn't wearing my ear protection and fired several rounds before realizing it. My ears were ringing for roughly 2 minutes, but I could easily hear normal conversation. Contrary to some, muzzle blast will not instantly deafen a person and definitely not when they're wearing hearing protection. Yes, if you are not, it will be painful and your ears will ring, but going to a live concert will impair your hearing much worse and for much longer than gunfire. What you see sometimes in movies, is that the bad guy falls down, holding his ears in agony when the good guy shoots beside him.
It's just not true.

originally posted by: SRPrime

originally posted by: DAVID64

Only he would not of been talking back to the radio operator because he would have been deaf from the shots his partner allegedly placed from the point blank range proximity moments ago

I've had weapons fired very close to me in enclosed spaces, with no hearing protection and while it is loud/painful and my ears were ringing, it's not like I was deaf and couldn't hear anything at all. I could still hear normal conversation. Besides that, the officer reports 'shots fired" after they were fired. You don't need to hear to talk.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not making excuses for the cops. Something funny is going on and I will bet you anything you like, that they find a way to say this was a good shoot and the officer faces no consequences.

No way; as someone who definitely has been in an enclosed space when a firearm was discharged, wearing hearing protection and being almost completely deaf, the only way your scenario is possible is if it was an extremely small caliber round, like a .22. Keep in mind exactly how small a cab of a squad car is; it's tiny, and for the passenger to fire at a target at the driver side window, he would had to have put the gun right in the face of the driving officer. So no; it's not just a firearm in a small space, it's a fire arm in a TINY space RIGHT next to his ear without any ear protection.

Infact; most people think there is no reason to own a .22, but the reason is, it's the only safe firearm to discharge in enclosed spaces without hearing protection.

If that really did happen, and he was talking despite having blast effect, he would have been yelling into that radio, and he wasn't.

I hate when people lie to make a point, don't do it -- you can be empirically proven wrong, and mad people who even shoot at the range know you're full of it.

Yep.
Anything bigger than a .22/.25 being fired inside the cab of a vehicle is going to ring some ears. Especially its its the standard .40 calibre.

And for the idiot saying he shot a .22 and it did nothing...that's because that's a damn firecracker outside.

I've been shooting all my life. Shot yotes from trucks with various sized rounds. That ish is loud and definitely slightly disorients you after a few successive rounds.

Just my .02 on the matter.

a reply to: DAVID64

I've been standing right next to someone, at an indoor shooting range,

Standing next to someone at a shooting range is not the same as having a gun discharged right next to your face in a car. I've been to many ranges and fired AK's and AR's while not wearing hearing protection and that was nothing compared to that time that gun was fired across my lap in front of my face out the passenger window, the ringing was bad and lasted a little while.

a reply to: DAVID64







Which would you say the range you attended looks most like out of these here? I ask only because at muzzle flash, especially looking at it from 10 inches away, it seems that is incredibly close compared to what shooting ranges offer. You have not only a booth but a wall, albeit not really a real wall, however, the sound can then bounce off and actually travel/come back/get absorbed. In this case, it was 3 shots point blank range in the face, but his hearing or ability was not impaired in the slightest? That's hardcore if true.

Did anyone see this about Teresa Graham? She is suing Noor and started the proceeding a day before Justine was shot.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Apparently, Noor was being sued a day before the shooting took place for false imprisonment, assault, battery and negligence. 2kilometers from where Damond was shot. And so the plot thickens.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

Then why didn't they care about Castile or the kid in the park with an air soft gun???

Castille was a licensed gun owner who did everything correctly.. a jumpy cop just shot him anyway.. exactly like this case..

Lol.. castile was not legally carrying due to drugs and alcohol, and not following directions to stop reaching. Also the cop was jumpy because he was thought to be a possible robbery suspect


Kid in the park, Rice, was committing aggravated assault by pointing a perceived weapon at people, and then drew it as police rolled up.

Not even a comparison to this case.

a reply to: SR1TX

Much smaller. 4 "booths" for shooters and inside the booths themselves, little more than shoulder width wide. When I say 'right next to" I mean inside the booth with them.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: SR1TX

Much smaller. 4 "booths" for shooters and inside the booths themselves, little more than shoulder width wide. When I say 'right next to" I mean inside the booth with them.

Well that logically makes no damn sense.
Not going to argue stupid semantics with you, but I think you're a liar.

Can't help myself- So, you happened to be standing right next a guy in a shooting booth that was barely shoulder-width wide, and he was so oblivious to you presence that he ahot off a few rounds before he noticed you?
How did you both fit into the booth that was so small without him noticing you?
So much of what you've said makes no sense to a person that's been around firearms, ranges and firearm enthusiasts their entire life.

a reply to: DAVID64

I don't mean to be rude, but how would your friend of not realized your hearing protection was not being used as was indicated previously? Seems like he would have known?

I don't meant to deflect.. anymore. I hope this thread and others like it do not stop until the Light Of Truth has found its way.

a reply to: Diabolical1972

Amazing new info-pieces coming together. Knew there had to be more to this weird story. Thank you.

a reply to: SR1TX

Now that this is a more detailed theory, let's discuss a few things (and I'm discussing based only on the OP--I have not read through the comments, so if I repeat what others have said, I'm sorry):

The video of the gunshot residue doesn't really mean a whole lot in this instance, as it is showing only what comes out of the barrel and how it is deposited (in general) directly in front of the firearm. If the window was down, little-to-no residue would have likely ended up in the vehicle, at least in a concentrated amount that would have been easy to locate (from other videos I watched and websites I read). That said, though, there would certainly have been collectable amounts on both the officer firing the weapon and the one apparently sitting directly to the side of the firearm when it was fired. As for it being an indication of anything, though, is another matter altogether, apparently:

If the lab technicians find GSR, it can come from anywhere. Police take the view that if you haven’t just left the firing range, you fired the murder weapon. This argument holds great weight if you live in a society where guns are rare, such as Singapore or Japan. If you live in other places in the world, including the United States, that argument means nothing.

GSR lasts nearly forever. It can land on anything and stay there indefinitely. Because so many people in this country shoot guns and the things in their lives are covered with GSR, an individual will be covered with GSR when he or she comes in contact with these people or anything they touched. If tested, the individual will test positive for GSR. It is human nature to see what you want to see, and the police want to see that which will solve the crime.

"The ability to contaminate is the reason that there is such a limited degree of conclusions that can be made with gunshot residue," said Marc S. Taylor, a gunshot-residue expert from California who has testified nationally for both prosecutors and defense attorneys. They should never be making the statement that says gunshot residue shows that someone fired a gun."

CSI Network

Now, I have no idea if they did or did not test for GSR in this particular case, but if not, maybe this is why?



As for your concern over the officer talking calmly during communications after having a weapon fired multiple time in close proximity in an enclosed vehicle--I have fired many firearms in my day, both in the military and in civilian life. There has been more than one occasion where I failed to have ear protection properly inserted (or inserted at all) while firing even an AR-15 (which would be right by my face during firing). In all instances, I was able to still hear and speak relatively normally--especially the speaking part. It's perfectly plausible that the officer would speak this way on the radio after such an event, and from what I understand, this is how they are trained to speak on the radio, even in high-stress situations.

I'm not saying that your concern isn't possibly warranted, but I am saying that it is not major point of concern to someone who has dealt firsthand with firearms and no ear protection. Now, if it were a 12-gauge shotgun, it would be a different matter.



What, exactly, is unlikely about Damond being able to walk from her house down an alley the equivalent distance of 10 closely spaced houses, in six minutes (or five minutes, if you shave off a minute). Why are you claiming that it doesn't make sense that officers can slowly drive through an alley, each visually searching one side as they go, and then radio concerning the shooting of Damond within a five-minute span?

I'm failing to see the unlikeliness of this scenario--it's the length of a residential block, which takes probably 10-15 seconds to traverse going 20mph. It's "unlikely" to go that distance, searching for possible suspects, in the span of four to five minutes?



Could you provide a link to the SOP concerning the bodycam and dashcam? I would think that, at most, they probably should have turned on the dashcam once they entered the alley, but body cams, from most video that I've seen, are not turned on until LEOs have generally exited the vehicle. I'm not doubting your claim, as SOPs differ from city to city, but I'd just like to read it with my own eyes to see if your assessment is accurate.

Remember, the onus of proof is on the one making the claim in a logical debate.

I'm willing to bet that the bodycams were not turned on because they hadn't yet assessed the situation as being dangerous--they hadn't even located the reported incident or a suspect.



Concerning the alleged victim (who was only a victim in the imagination of Damond, who in her own words was uncertain if it was enjoyed, consentual sex...or even sex at all), unless the incident was exactly as Damond imagined at the time of the her calls, and the unsubstantiated victim was left lying in the alley, there wouldn't be a victim at all.

You are making the assumption based on a 911 call from someone who did not have eyes on the situation that there is even a victim to be found. This part of the incident isn't even confirmed, yet you find it appropriate to imply that the officers were the ones perpetrating the alleged rape.

This is where your logic fails massively.



Our friend from down under didn't see a damn thing--she heard things that concerned her, but that also could have been misconstrued in the imagination of the caller. Yet, here you are, still going on about the cover-up by these two officers, making the outright statement that the official story is a lie.

You have no proof, and like you told me before, yes, I know that this is a conspiracy site, but just making random allegations based on flimsy circumstantial evidence does not a valid conspiracy make.

Look, as a man who is skeptical first, as a rule, I appreciate your efforts and skeptical approach, but I think what you're doing is creating a problem where one doesn't exist in this instance.

I feel that your foundational flaw in your theory is that you give 100% accuracy to Ms. Damon's description of the events, and you jump off from there. My approach, after years of sitting in with attorneys interviewing people concerning things like rape cases and abuse cases, is that witnesses are wrong. A lot.

Especially when they don't have eyes on a situation and let their imaginations fill in the blanks.

a reply to: SlapMonkey


Look up Teresa Graham about Noor, it was day before the shooting when she started legal proceeding against him, 2 kilometers from where Justine was shot, you should add that in your theory. So if I were you, I would read comments because you might be missing important details on why Justine was shot by Officer Noor and why the body cams were off at the time.

a reply to: Diabolical1972

I'll look into it, but this is sort of an ongoing discussion between SR1TX and myself concerning his lack of extraordinary proof to back up his extraordinary claim.

I don't have a theory...I don't know from where you got that idea.

As for Ms. Graham, I have found limited information on her, but did find a story that cited her family members as saying that she suffers from an unnamed mental illness. I'm not saying that negates her complaint against Noor, but it's a point worth considering if you're going to use Ms. Graham as a citation to bolster the OP's claims.

And from th is source:

However, Ms Graham’s neighbours of 30 years have chosen to defend the police officer. One woman said she “calls the police a lot”.

Another said: “Something could have happened, but I think if it did she probably exaggerated it”.

Things aren't looking good for Ms. Graham's credibility, at least in her claims as being 100% factually based.

I'll look into it a bit further, though, after lunch.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

BLM started as an organization against the killing of people of color by anyone, not just the po-po. Then white, over-privileged, trust fund babies with dread locks and a penchant for Phish concerts got involved and turned it into what it is today, the very thing you decry.

The police in this country have always been given a break. For the period of time after 911 they could do no wrong in the eyes of the public and most judges. The pendulum has begun to swing the other way.

The fact that Noor is refusing to cooperate leads me to the conclusion that he should be fired.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: odzeandennz

Yep and it is disgusting..

It takes a beautiful blonde haired white woman before people care...

What utter horsesh*t.

If you want to make appropriate comparisons, look at instances when similar white women were acting like complete fools or doing something illegal, then make your broad generalization. Either that, or point to me a thread where such an obviously unnecessary, with similar circumstances, police shooting occurred and everyone defended the police officer outright and didn't care about the victim.

Give me a GD break...did you already give up on your concern for logical fallacies?

a reply to: essentialtremors

Never walked up behind someone genius?