Minneapolis Officer Mohamed Noor & Partner Are Lying. - Update

originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: JoshuaCox

.... You are talking about a fight of epic proportions and one that multiple neighbors, or someone, at least, would have been able tocoo-berate with the story..

Come again?

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.

You will not be satisfied. Look at OP's thread on this topic yesterday for further understanding of the situation.

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.

Rofl, precisely because he knows that is the only safe thing to do. You should never, ever, ever, ever, ever EVER make a statement without a lawyer preset at the very least and even then it is iffy in some cases. He is a cop, he knows what detectives do with statements from innocent people.

Wow where was this effort for the other police shootings?

a reply to: JoshuaCox

This is just a general comment of sorts: There just might be a bright side to all this insanity: The end of the SOMALI LAW OFFICERS MINORITY ENROLLMENT PROJECT. This is a script for a Quentin Tarantino movie.
This is also the proverbial " # Storm " that won't go away. Someone will have to donate their head for this one.
Who ? The low hanging fruit: Officer Skinny and his Broke Back Mountain partner. It's everyone for themselves here, and they do eat their own when there is nothing left to chew on.....

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.?

Silly cop broke doesn't know the rule of police shootings. Shooting a blonde blue eyed white woman will get you jail time and being black is strike two.

Now some conservatives are on the bad cop bad shoot bandwagon and all it took was for a white person to get shot. Ignore the unarmed minority being shot but scream for justice when it is a armed white woman. SAD.

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.?

I have no idea to his innocence. What I meant was he knows what can happen when even an innocent person makes a statement. Basically saying if he was even somewhat intelligent and paying attention he would not make a statement regardless of his guilt or innocence.

Being innocent and having good intentions doesn't mean everything will work out and you won't end up in prison anyway. Unless he is an absolute idiot he knows this.

a reply to: sputniksteve

That is what I thought you meant by the post, just making sure for my mind. And I agree. I've been at jury duty where people believe not talking, especially at trial, means guilty despite the 5th amendment that is there to prevent what you described basically.

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.?

As far as being an American (the rest of the world's mileage may vary drastically):
No, it means never talk to the police. Even if you're innocent, they will use every opportunity they can to twist any tiny thing you say into some sort of evidence of your guilt. Talking to a police officer drastically increases the chance that you'll be sitting in jail or worse, regardless of guilt.
Let me give you an example. Let's say a coworker of yours was murdered and the police are interviewing everyone in the office. They bring you in and start asking you routine questions...
"Did you have any grievance with so and so?"
"No."
"None at all? You've never gotten mad at them or wanted to murder them?"
"Well, I mean there were times they got on my nerves and made me a little mad, like when they took the last of the coffee, but I'd never want to murder them."
It's now on permanent record that you admitted to getting angry at your coworker. You just gave the police a motive for murder, and you're the new prime suspect.

The conversation could have otherwise gone like this:
"Did you have any grievance with so and so?"
"I have nothing to say. Goodbye."

If they ask you for ID, give it to them. Otherwise, say nothing. This has literally resulted in me being let go with a warning when I would have otherwise been arrested simply for answering a question.

Don't talk to the police.

Officer Noor is an officer, so he knows this very well.

Is the OP claiming this poor woman was deliberately murdered by these cops?

a reply to: Willtell

Yes.

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.

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?

Ha...this is a really great line of logic, IMO, Mr. Smartypants!

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.

If true; it means only one thing -- he's already almost deaf, in which case, he probably wouldn't be able to be a cop without some kind of hearing aid, which would probably have blown if it were that close to a gun discharging, which would again -- leave him deafened.

In no way did this actually happen. Why would the passenger fire through the driver window; did the driver know it was coming and had already leaned back? Wasn't he talking to the woman? Like... the story literally makes zero sense.

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 ?

It can last anywhere from between 15 minutes and 2-3 hours. Depends on the space that you're in, the caliber of the round, and the muzzle break at the end of the barrel.

In no circumstance could you fire a gun in a cop car and not be almost completely deaf -- you know, they have bullet proof glass screens between the front two seats and the back, which means the actual space for the sound to travel is restricted to immediately behind the seat, it's not the entire empty space of the car, which even still -- would mostly deafen you for 30 minutes on average.

Before Justine died she rescued 8 baby ducklings from a sewer and helped them over to the lake. Awwwwww. So sad. She had a good heart.

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.

I mean; It's not awful to arrive at the conclusion that the officer shot her on purpose and meant to kill her, that's a fact -- evident by her dead body being dead by his bullets. It's awful that the cop shot her.

There was clearly no warranting reason to discharge or even draw on her, so that definitely is awful.

Dont the lights and sirens turn on the dashcam?

They cant "turn it off" while they are on the job with lights going.

a reply to: SRPrime

I totally agree with you

I have deep sympathy for the victim here...just expressing that