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.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: roadgravel
Again, the officers stories are irrelevant, largely speaking, when it comes to figuring out what actually happened in that situation. The forensic evidence will be far more telling.
And yet no one seems to want to answer me, as to why we might be lead to doubt the nature of the event, from a forensic standpoint. The OP needs to explain where his or her belief, that the forensic examination required to establish the facts, has not has not happened, or will not happen for some reason, came from.
While I am no fan of the police cover up culture which exists in some localities without a doubt, I am also determined that we ought to be sure that we make only reasonable protestations. In this case, there appears to be no reason to believe that the normal forensic processes will not be undertaken, unless there is a specific reason to believe that they will not, some sort of precedent in the locality for the forensics teams to fail to act in the normal fashion, or for evidence to be deliberately contaminated, incorrectly processed to invalidate it, or otherwise tampered with to the detriment of justice and the benefit of those accused.
Without such precedent, what is happening here is just a bunch of conclusions being jumped to.
originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: GusMcDangerthing
www.theage.com.au...
Mr Noor's lawyer, Thomas Plunkett, has confirmed the besieged Somali-born policeman continues to exercise his legal right not to be interviewed by investigators probing Ms Damond's death.
This is looking worse and worse. Why would he refuse to be interviewed? You'd think, if he was telling the truth, he would want the facts out there and to clear his name.
He is a cop, he knows what detectives do with statements from innocent people.
originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: sputniksteve
He is a cop, he knows what detectives do with statements from innocent people.
Meaning he is innocent or that he may be in a world of hurt because he know's past that point.?
originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: sputniksteve
He is a cop, he knows what detectives do with statements from innocent people.
Meaning he is innocent or that he may be in a world of hurt because he know's past that point.?
originally posted by: sputniksteve
a reply to: Willtell
Yes.
originally posted by: SR1TX
Please fast forward to material in question which begins at 4:25 - This is the complete audio - not snipped version excluding 911 operator informing officers of female standing behind building. You will hear officer Harrity say "ok" then stating shots fired, calmly, one down, etc.
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. It is very likely instead that he would have been yelling or unable to hear/understand anything going on. Yet we hear someone calm as a Hindu cow on the other end as if nothing happened. How is this possible inside of an enclosed vehicle as this, that the officer, less than a foot away from said gunshot, is able to hold a conversation after his dome having such a weapon discharged in front of it?
originally posted by: SR1TX
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.
originally posted by: SR1TX
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 ?
originally posted by: Willtell
originally posted by: sputniksteve
a reply to: Willtell
Yes.
Thanks, that’s what I though he said. That’s awful
The question is why in the world he shot the woman
His Op wasn’t easy to decipher particularly that the YouTube links didn’t work.