View Full Version : Cop kills women who called 911, another ND? (Minneapolis, MN)
I'm sure most of you have seen this on the news. Women calls 911 and ends up being shot and dies. Very little intel coming from it so far from the PD as they do their investigation. I strongly suspect an ND:
“However, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune newspaper has reported, through three sources, that Damond, 40, was in her pajamas when shot and was speaking to Noor’s partner at the time through the window of a police car in which Noor was allegedly a passenger.” (1)
Of course, those sources could be incorrect as they often are so early in an event like that.
Sadly, most LEOs are poorly trained with fire arms, and it's getting worse vs better it seems. I always give LE the benefit of the doubt, but this has fail written all over it. There's also rumors the PD lowered standards due to criticism of a lack cultural diversity in the PD and this LEO their first Somali immigrant cop who does have a string of prior complaints... They are rumors only at this time as far as I know.
(1) https://heavy.com/news/2017/07/mohamed-noor-justine-damond-ruszczyk-minneapolis-police-officer-somali-mohammed/
Thanks for posting this, Will.
Only a couple hours away and it's something I have already had two different people yell in my face over when I said:
"This one seems like a bad shoot, but we will have to wait for more information."
Nonetheless, sounds more and more like a bad shoot, but I am not so sure about an ND. The article made it seem she was shot multiple times?
KTSP also reported some of the same details, adding that Damond was shot multiple times.
Not 100% on any of this information though.
More info needs to come out about this before I can even speculate on what happened. Ive seen reports that said multiple shots, reports that said the shots went through the door, and this morning a report that said the ME said it was one shot in the abdomen.
If it was a single shot in the abdomen and the bullet traveled through the door then I believe the ND theory has merit.
Couldn't agree more.
Now reports that the Officer felt like his life was "Very very in danger."
Granted, I don't have any reliable sources. So, we will see if this is just continued bad reporting or what.
I was a street cop long enough to know better than to speculate given the serious lack of information coming out about this case.
What I will say, is that for once in a very long time the news media is rather silent on this one considering. Yes, they are mentioning the story, but at least the reports I'm seeing they are not saying much.
The silence coming out of this one is deafening.
All I know is that if one of my old patrol brothers or I were the officer(s) involved, CNN and Sky News would be parked on our front lawns, calling for our heads by now... Even given the same lack of information.
Strange times now days. The story must be missing an element of a certain narrative...
have not seen any news yet that is solid and chances are it will be buried
if it was a white cop killing a black women it would be riots in the street a black cop killing a white tourist does not merit news to the left
sadly the fact the cop has a muslim name surely does not fit what they want to report so double burry this one
and I hope some idiots on the right do not use he is black or muslim to anything negative either
the race to be anti racist has made some of the most racist times we have seen
have not seen any news yet that is solid and chances are it will be buried
if it was a white cop killing a black women it would be riots in the street a black cop killing a white tourist does not merit news to the left
sadly the fact the cop has a muslim name surely does not fit what they want to report so double burry this one
and I hope some idiots on the right do not use he is black or muslim to anything negative either
the race to be anti racist has made some of the most racist times we have seen
They don't care much about black female cops either. Dude walked up and assassinated her:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/05/female-police-officer-critical-after-shooting-in-bronx.html
So I just saw what is supposedly a summary of the ME report which states cause of death is a gunshot wound to the abdomen. Until more information comes out I'm thinking ND.
dwhitehorne
07-18-17, 17:01
Taking with coworkers about this today. Total head scratcher on what transpired from the limited details. We all thought ND immediately but what the hell. From the passenger side through the driver door? Officer looks light a righty from the picture I've seen. Not sure how that would happen. Drawing from seated in the car in uniform with the vest on is not something done in a split second. We were even speculating so wildly as to maybe putting long gun away and discharged. Who knows. Very sad situation for the woman. I believe others are correct in the media will drop it ASAP. David
Averageman
07-18-17, 17:58
So she's reported a possible assault outside her home, then goes outside in her pajamas to talk to the responding Officers..
While talking to the Cop in the Drivers seat the Cop in the passenger seat draws and shoots?
Lots of confusing information here.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-18-17, 18:21
So she's reported a possible assault outside her home, then goes outside in her pajamas to talk to the responding Officers..
While talking to the Cop in the Drivers seat the Cop in the passenger seat draws and shoots?
Lots of confusing information here.
That is the best summary I have heard and it makes no sense.
You know the press has some serious SJW action going when they don't go full attack when you kill a young, pretty, blonde, Australian woman.
Eurodriver
07-18-17, 20:26
Public perception matters these days. Remember Zimmerman being prosecuted?
Shooting an unarmed pretty Australian women is not a good look even if she did run out of a dark alley toward a police car after loud bangs were heard by the LEOs.
It's gotta be tough out there with all the ambushes and this dude is gonna get hung out to dry regardless of the facts.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-18-17, 21:58
What I don't like about how these cops are dealt with in these shootings is the job versus standard civil liberties. If I were rolling down an alley and lit this lady up like that I'd be arrested and most likely charged with something by now. The cop is on paid leave.
What I'm getting at is that we either need to treat these cops like they were involved in a workplace incident with some legal immunity and get answers faster or we need to give them all the legal protections and prosecutorial invasiveness that standard citizens get and let it work itself out. Right now they get all the legal protections and pretty much none of the legal heat that a regular citizen would face. There was a workplace incident and make your report. You want to abandon your work place responsibilities and assert your civil rights, get treated like everyone else.
You can't have cops shooting people for absolutely no discernable reasonable cause and throw up your hands and say that we can't really say anything for a few months.
If anyone else did this, the prosecutor would be out there with a story to tell already.
SomeOtherGuy
07-18-17, 22:11
What I don't like about how these cops are dealt with in these shootings is the job versus standard civil liberties.****
You can't have cops shooting people for absolutely no discernable reasonable cause and throw up your hands and say that we can't really say anything for a few months.
If anyone else did this, the prosecutor would be out there with a story to tell already.
This, precisely.
I'm seeing very little US "journalism" reporting on this incident - AT ALL - shockingly so. But it's all over the Australian media. For example:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/justine-damonds-tragic-loss-in-us-prompts-malcolm-turnbull-to-demand-answers-20170718-gxdz6u.html
It appears that the deceased had called police in the belief that someone else was getting assaulted, and she was not the victim of anything before getting shot by police.
This kind of thing just can't be allowed to happen. No matter how "understandable" this might seem from a jaded officer's perspective, this is just not OK.
They don't care much about black female cops either. Dude walked up and assassinated her:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/05/female-police-officer-critical-after-shooting-in-bronx.html
yup :) sadly
So according to the driver they were pulling into the alley and the passenger officer had his gun out already incase of an ambush. They stopped and the victim ran up to the driver window. As she was running up there was a loud bang noise and the passenger officer leaned over and shot her. The driver officer didn't know what the loud noise was. Apparently there is a possible witness that the driver officer said was on scene that left without being interviewed.
Especially considering location I fully expect the officer will be charged.
Especially considering location I fully expect the officer will be charged.
He's Somalian. Minneapolis has quite a pickle on their hands.
I faintly remember this from school days long ago (Ike was President then) : "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
"liberty and justice for all"...
Sounds almost quaint now.
Maybe in the Hereafter.
Bit dramatic there.
Yeah, but being lied to constantly tends to make me a bit grumpy. Gotta watch that.
Averageman
07-19-17, 06:53
So according to the driver they were pulling into the alley and the passenger officer had his gun out already in case of an ambush. They stopped and the victim ran up to the driver window. As she was running up there was a loud bang noise and the passenger officer leaned over and shot her. The driver officer didn't know what the loud noise was. Apparently there is a possible witness that the driver officer said was on scene that left without being interviewed.
Especially considering location I fully expect the officer will be charged.
Not the guy I would want riding in my passenger seat.
I've not done the job, but I've done a long career in the .mil I've seen people who just weren't wired for being given a gun and asked to go to dangerous places and do dangerous things.
You've either got control of yourself and your assigned weapon or you don't.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-19-17, 07:35
Where did the shooter think he was? If the rationale was he feared an ambush, where exactly doesn't he fear an ambush? This area isn't exactly the South Side of Chicago.
Loud noises at night are what scares my 9 yo daughter.
So it was such a high-stress and dangerous mission that he had his gun out and at the ready, but they didn't turn on any cameras.... that will take some interesting logic gymnastics to explain if this goes to trial.
Is doubled up officers in a car standard practice in MSP?
Averageman
07-19-17, 10:25
Also, I'm not sure how smart it is to call the Police about some shots being fired and then go outside your house to meet the responding Officers.
Really, just give your address and sit and wait. I'm pretty sure if they want to talk to you, they'll knock on your door.
Also, I'm not sure how smart it is to call the Police about some shots being fired and then go outside your house to meet the responding Officers.
Really, just give your address and sit and wait. I'm pretty sure if they want to talk to you, they'll knock on your door.
This was my 2nd thought after wondering if either officer can hear anything. You had better be saving my life if you are going to shoot across me while inside a vehicle!
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-19-17, 11:03
Also, I'm not sure how smart it is to call the Police about some shots being fired and then go outside your house to meet the responding Officers.
Really, just give your address and sit and wait. I'm pretty sure if they want to talk to you, they'll knock on your door.
She reported shots fired? I thought it was a potential sexual assault?
Averageman
07-19-17, 11:09
Also, just an observation:
I've got a Cop from Somalia and a Woman who is from Australia both worried about some "shots fired" in what is likely a decent neighborhood.
That this happened a couple of weeks after the 4th of July might really mean some kid had some leftover M80's rather than some gun play taking place.
But if you're not from the U.S. you might ratchet it up to a higher level and get a bit more excited than someone more familiar with the area and customs.
But if you're not from the U.S. you might ratchet it up to a higher level and get a bit more excited than someone more familiar with the area and customs.
He came to America 'at a young age' according to one article. He attended Augsburg College in Minneapolis, graduating in 2011. Assuming 4 years in college, that runs us back to 2007 or 2008.
From what I can tell lived in America for 9 or 10 years minimum before this incident.
He should be familiar with the customs.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-19-17, 11:35
Also, just an observation:
I've got a Cop from Somalia and a Woman who is from Australia both worried about some "shots fired" in what is likely a decent neighborhood.
That this happened a couple of weeks after the 4th of July might really mean some kid had some leftover M80's rather than some gun play taking place.
But if you're not from the U.S. you might ratchet it up to a higher level and get a bit more excited than someone more familiar with the area and customs.
That is the second time you have mentioned 'shots fired' on when all I read it was a possible sexual assault. Do you have a source for the woman reporting that there was shooting?
Also, just an observation:
I've got a Cop from Somalia and a Woman who is from Australia both worried about some "shots fired" in what is likely a decent neighborhood.
That this happened a couple of weeks after the 4th of July might really mean some kid had some leftover M80's rather than some gun play taking place.
.
Yep and last year I thought the same thing. I live in a great neighborhood in a great upper middle class/upper class area. Crime is none existent. Last year shortly after July 4th..... One night I took my dog out for a walk before bedtime. About 12 midnight. I cross the street and proceed to walk up the street towards an intersection. As I do I hear a laud pop sound. I'm thinking.... great, kids are going to be setting off fireworks when I'm trying to go to bed! I cross the intersection go up a little more. Come back down, go home. Next morning I drive past that intersection, which is only a hundred feet past my house, and the whole street is closed off with yellow tape. That pop noise I heard was a gun shot. Home owner was shot in the head. It was a love triangle and the other guy was jealous. It was the first murder in my area in 30 years!
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Averageman
07-19-17, 11:47
That is the second time you have mentioned 'shots fired' on when all I read it was a possible sexual assault. Do you have a source for the woman reporting that there was shooting?
Yes, but it was a different article.
I was home sick yesterday afternoon and read up on this a bit. I cannot pull up the article at work right now, but to summarize:
She reported hearing gunshots in behind her house and down the alley.
I support law enforcement 150%. But does it take this long to tell the truth? So we have two people out of the three in the initial contact that are still alive, the two police officers, one driver and the passenger that had his weapon discharged. Let's just pretend the worst case scenario that the officer that discharged his weapon suddenly suffered amnesia or lost his voice or whatever. Is it too hard to ask the driver officer, "what did your partner/passenger officer do?" , "was the woman aggressive/attacking you two?" , and all questions along that line. The longer they are silence, the larger the question of why/what/how, etc. Or did both of them suffer simultaneous amnesia?
On a related topic, having a gun discharged next to you with the bullet or bullets passing in front of you is a very traumatic event.
I see a humongous lawsuit coming...
I guess the lesson here is don't call in crimes, especially gun shots, and go outside to talk to the good guys. Especially, when one of them is an iffy Somali officer who probably suffers from a form of PTSD from his days in a hell hole like Somali.
This thing stinks, that woman could not possibly look like a threat. Shot once, an accident, but three times? The officer had mental problems and should not have been on duty.
I know its a tough job, but that should not have happened.
46542
SCARY! She's WHITE, and deserves to be shot THREE times by a black under-privileged Somali. That's what the MSM is, in effect, saying. The PROGRESSIVES are truly SICK.
Averageman
07-19-17, 13:45
Sometimes all of us being human we makes mistakes.
Add in some cultural differences, pressures and stress and the result is, things go sideways.
No one wanted to get shot, no one wanted to shoot an innocent person. When mistakes happen and people react or over react the results aren't always linear sometimes they stack up and you get this kind of a result.
After my last post, I came across this yahoo article:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/officer-partner-fired-fatal-shot-moments-loud-sound-051017189.html
Basically said the officer was started by a loud noise. I've been joking for a long time and using colorful high speed low drag terminology that you guys surely will understand, "keep your booger hook off the bang switch".
What I don't like about how these cops are dealt with in these shootings is the job versus standard civil liberties. If I were rolling down an alley and lit this lady up like that I'd be arrested and most likely charged with something by now. The cop is on paid leave.
What I'm getting at is that we either need to treat these cops like they were involved in a workplace incident with some legal immunity and get answers faster or we need to give them all the legal protections and prosecutorial invasiveness that standard citizens get and let it work itself out. Right now they get all the legal protections and pretty much none of the legal heat that a regular citizen would face. There was a workplace incident and make your report. You want to abandon your work place responsibilities and assert your civil rights, get treated like everyone else.
You can't have cops shooting people for absolutely no discernable reasonable cause and throw up your hands and say that we can't really say anything for a few months.
If anyone else did this, the prosecutor would be out there with a story to tell already.
I think it depends on the location. In my state you have 24 hours to provide a written report on use of lethal force as a LEO. If you don't, then you're subject to suspension and possible revocation of your certification. While you still enjoy qualified immunity on the civil side, that statement may still be held against you in criminal court if the DA decides you shot someone unlawfully. Meanwhile a non-LE citizen has no duty to provide information that may be used against them in criminal court.
In the county I spend most of my time in, the DA has prosecuted three OIS. The first was a reserve deputy who shot a suspect already being subdued (mistaken taser event). He got 4 years for second-degree manslaughter. The second was the female officer who shot a suspect who was high on PCP and reaching into his vehicle against orders. She was acquitted of first-degree manslaughter and her suspension was lifted. However she was placed on permanent desk duty and ultimately resigned. The prosecution was highly controversial because the DA charged her before all the facts were in evidence and even before the homicide unit report was complete. The third was an off duty officer who shot and killed his worthless daughter's thug boyfriend. He's claiming self-defense. He's already been tried for first-degree murder THREE times resulting in three fairly evenly hung juries, but the DA is going for trial #4.
Now this is in one of the most conservative states in the country and even though the county itself is somewhat liberal, it's nowhere even remotely as liberal as most urban counties. Needless to say, LE does not automatically get a pass here, not even more leniency. In comparison, this DA is charging a citizen with first-degree manslaughter for shooting a thief stealing $600 worth of fireworks. During the theft, the shooter tried to stop the theft and claims the getaway driver fired a shot at him, which was when he returned fire. The problem is there's no proof that the driver had a gun because he abandoned the vehicle and his mortally wounded accomplice down the road and didn't resurface for two days. Upon surfacing he gives media an interview where he says he didn't have a gun and that the shooter murdered his cousin in cold blood for a few fireworks. Of course while we're suspending disbelief, we should ignore that he's got a record that's pages long and includes charges and convictions such as assault with a deadly weapon and possession of a firearm AFCF and during the commission of a felony. :rolleyes:
Eurodriver
07-19-17, 14:04
46542
SCARY! She's WHITE, and deserves to be shot THREE times by a black under-privileged Somali. That's what the MSM is, in effect, saying. The PROGRESSIVES are truly SICK.
Can you show me where this is in the MSM
Can you show me where this is in the MSM
The lack of outrage says it all. And I can assure you its being said by progressives of the SJW persuasion. If this were a black woman shot by a cop it would be non-stop 7x24 news. Complete with BLM protests. You apparently have not been keeping up with current events. MSM caters to these people, for what reason I have yet to fathom.
I keep forgetting to add you to my ignore list. #2 on that list. Thanks for reminding me. I don't really believe in ignore lists, but I thought I'd try it on this forum to see if it makes any difference.
Allegedly the partner who was driving has given an official statement, but the shooter has not.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4711080/Killer-cop-Noor-tells-story-Justine-startled-him.html
It appears the shooter may be playing the "I'm being persecuted because I'm a non-white Somali Muslim immigrant" card? :(
The lack of outrage says it all. And I can assure you its being said by progressives of the SJW persuasion. If this were a black woman shot by a cop it would be non-stop 7x24 news. Complete with BLM protests. You apparently have not been keeping up with current events. MSM caters to these people, for what reason I have yet to fathom.
I keep forgetting to add you to my ignore list. #2 on that list. Thanks for reminding me. I don't really believe in ignore lists, but I thought I'd try it on this forum to see if it makes any difference.
TBH, it may take them a while to figure out the victimology at play here. He's a Muslim immigrant, but she was apparently an extremely vocal anti-gun Aussie immigrant.
Averageman
07-19-17, 14:38
You might want to lighten up a bit.
The guy was a LEO and to me that makes his color and religion blue.
The reason no one is protesting, burning down their neighborhood or shooting people of color is because reasonable people take reasonable actions. They wait before rushing to action or violence.
I see a scared Woman, a scared Cop and what was likely some sort of fireworks all converging at the same time and place.
You can point out mistakes, but really, it would seem the Lady and the Cop both made them.
Allegedly the partner who was driving has given an official statement, but the shooter has not.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4711080/Killer-cop-Noor-tells-story-Justine-startled-him.html
It appears the shooter may be playing the "I'm being persecuted because I'm a non-white Somali Muslim immigrant" card? :(
Well that didn't take long:
"Noor, a Somali-born American has also said he feels isolated for his race and friend said: 'His feeling is "I am an immigrant, a Muslim and not white."'
And I didn't even know this was an option for post OIS investigations:
"The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), which is investigating the shooting, said in a statement Tuesday that he had declined to be interviewed and that his attorney had not said if or when an interview would take place."
The LEO can just lawyer up without being interviewed? I'm trying not to go there, but will be viewed as an admission of guilt by many.
Unless the media reports we continue to see are wildly inaccurate (always possible) it seems he really fU&^3d up.
You might want to lighten up a bit.
The guy was a LEO and to me that makes his color and religion blue.
The reason no one is protesting, burning down their neighborhood or shooting people of color is because reasonable people take reasonable actions. They wait before rushing to action or violence.
I see a scared Woman, a scared Cop and what was likely some sort of fireworks all converging at the same time and place.
You can point out mistakes, but really, it would seem the Lady and the Cop both made them.
If you read the link I posted, Noor is challenging the blue line card. Also, the only mistake that matters is the pulling the trigger one.
As for the outrage, are you saying that minority communities are unreasonable? Because you know very well there'd be protests and most likely riots if it were an unarmed minority female shot by a white cop. I'm not saying that as a slight to minorities BTW, I'm saying the media hypes it and fans the flames in the hopes of a dumpster fire they can cover. :(
Well that didn't take long:
"Noor, a Somali-born American has also said he feels isolated for his race and friend said: 'His feeling is "I am an immigrant, a Muslim and not white."'
And I didn't even know this was an option for post OIS investigations:
"The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), which is investigating the shooting, said in a statement Tuesday that he had declined to be interviewed and that his attorney had not said if or when an interview would take place."
The LEO can just lawyer up without being interviewed? I'm trying not to go there, but will be viewed as an admission of guilt by many.
Unless the media reports we continue to see are wildly inaccurate (always possible) it seems he really fU&^3d up.
He's allegedly claiming he refused to provide a statement on the advice of counsel, which may be a smart play in this case. Any charges for failure to cooperate or failure to submit a statement will be negated when his mouthpiece goes to the press with claims he's being persecuted because of his race/religion/immigration status, etc. It's a smart play IMO.
Averageman
07-19-17, 14:56
I'm thinking he came to the realization that he F'ed up about five seconds after he exited the vehicle. He might likely be feeling the whole system is working against him right about now. That's pretty human I would guess.
I don't know what advice legal counsel might be giving him, but he might want to take 72 hours or so to come down off the situation before giving a statement that might be more emotion than truth driven.
Yeah I am saying anyone who burns down their neighborhood and loots their neighbors business and plays the fool for the cameras all before the investigation is over is being an unreasonable jackwagon.
I'm thinking he came to the realization that he F'ed up about five seconds after he wai the exited vehicle. He might likely be feeling the whole system is working against him right about now. That's pretty human I would guess.
I don't know what advice legal counsel might be giving him, but he might want to take 72 hours or so to come down off the situation before giving a statement that might be more emotion than truth driven.
Yeah I am saying anyone who burns down their neighborhood and loots their neighbors business and plays the fool for the cameras all before the investigation is over is being an unreasonable jackwagon.
Searches for like button... no Joy. :(
Well that didn't take long:
"Noor, a Somali-born American has also said he feels isolated for his race and friend said: 'His feeling is "I am an immigrant, a Muslim and not white."'
And I didn't even know this was an option for post OIS investigations:
"The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), which is investigating the shooting, said in a statement Tuesday that he had declined to be interviewed and that his attorney had not said if or when an interview would take place."
The LEO can just lawyer up without being interviewed? I'm trying not to go there, but will be viewed as an admission of guilt by many.
Unless the media reports we continue to see are wildly inaccurate (always possible) it seems he really fU&^3d up.
If the LEO's attorney advised him to not give a statement, he may be maneuvering to protect his client under guidelines established in the Supreme Court ruling - Garrity v. New Jersey.
Averageman
07-19-17, 15:17
The guy has to respond, I'm not even sure he can plead the fifth without looking like this could be more than an accidental shooting.
I have no personal experience in dealing with shooting someone accidentally, but I'm pretty sure it sucks. I have worked with someone accused of such a thing, but there was a gun found just as he described on closer examination.
It pretty much ruined the guy.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-19-17, 15:23
He's allegedly claiming he refused to provide a statement on the advice of counsel, which may be a smart play in this case. Any charges for failure to cooperate or failure to submit a statement will be negated when his mouthpiece goes to the press with claims he's being persecuted because of his race/religion/immigration status, etc. It's a smart play IMO.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/19/us/minneapolis-shooting-upended-outrage-trnd/index.html
There's a predictable pattern to the aftermath of too many deadly police shootings: Neighbors and anti-police brutality groups take to the streets. Groups supporting the officers stand up for them. Social media lights up over whether the victim "did something" to provoke the officer.
Because the race and nationality of the victim and police officer aren't what has typically garnered headlines, people who normally speak up aren't saying much.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/19/opinions/justine-ruszczyk-shooting-opinion-love/index.html
It's as if the only thing that matters is that the woman was white. She was the complainant, in her pyjamas and unarmed. All those facts are far more important than the fact that she was white and the cop is black. Why aren't LEO groups defending the cop? Could it be because he shot an unarmed woman or is it because he is black. LEO groups defend black cops all the time. If anything I find the silence of groups concentrating on LEO violence to be the most racist. Here you have nearly perfect case of a bad LEO shooting and you hear very little. Surprise white women, you are lower on the SJW value meter than a black guy, if he is an immigrant and especially a muslim.
I think the real reason there is so little about this from all the groups is that the action is just so full of stupid it stretches the ability to put some kind of pattern and understanding to it.
Can anyone tell me when the last time a cop shot across his partner from inside a car?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/19/us/minneapolis-shooting-upended-outrage-trnd/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/19/opinions/justine-ruszczyk-shooting-opinion-love/index.html
It's as if the only thing that matters is that the woman was white. She was the complainant, in her pyjamas and unarmed. All those facts are far more important than the fact that she was white and the cop is black. Why aren't LEO groups defending the cop? Could it be because he shot an unarmed woman or is it because he is black. LEO groups defend black cops all the time. If anything I find the silence of groups concentrating on LEO violence to be the most racist. Here you have nearly perfect case of a bad LEO shooting and you hear very little. Surprise white women, you are lower on the SJW value meter than a black guy, if he is an immigrant and especially a muslim.
I think the real reason there is so little about this from all the groups is that the action is just so full of stupid it stretches the ability to put some kind of pattern and understanding to it.
Can anyone tell me when the last time a cop shot across his partner from inside a car?
Why won't the NRA support Philando Castile? They're certainly taking a beating for that refusal! :(
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/06/20/why-won-nra-speak-out-about-philando-castile/6P6pIx7bHRQ0ZlwFJ7x4VJ/story.html
Averageman
07-19-17, 15:43
I would guess that the silence is more about a bad shooting than some sort of racism. Shooting inside the vehicle and past your partners face and body would be the last and I mean last resort.
I would guess the guy was dealing with other charges already and a bit high strung. If he was sitting in the car with me I would have asked him to holster his pistol and chill out a bit.
Shooting an unarmed person in their jammies is bad enough, but but shooting in the car, past your partner?
His best defense might be explaining his side of the situation, explaining that he was very afraid and when he heard the noise he thought She was shooting his partner and offering his resignation.
Can anyone tell me when the last time a cop shot across his partner from inside a car?
Shooting inside the vehicle and past your partners face and body would be the last and I mean last resort.
.
The answer to the two above questions:
First thing came to my mind was "Platt and Matix", but they certainly were not police.
I've shot across "protectees" inside vehicles during PSD training and it's a legitimate tactic when caught inside an immobilized vehicle in an ambush. Shooting across the driver inside a vehicle that's capable of being driven out of an ambush? Seems a poor choice at best. :(
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-19-17, 16:19
Why won't the NRA support Philando Castile? They're certainly taking a beating for that refusal! :(
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/06/20/why-won-nra-speak-out-about-philando-castile/6P6pIx7bHRQ0ZlwFJ7x4VJ/story.html
The NRA should have supported him more, but he was high at the time of the shooting, so not the perfect case. The oddity of the GF periscoping the direct aftermath was a bit of an odd visual, but it might have actually resonated with millennials.
I just read the 911 transcript.
No shooting reported.
Why won't the NRA support Philando Castile? They're certainly taking a beating for that refusal! :(
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/06/20/why-won-nra-speak-out-about-philando-castile/6P6pIx7bHRQ0ZlwFJ7x4VJ/story.html
Why would the NRA support a pot head? Gun owners already have a craptastic image in the MSM. Why would anyone bring more heat their way?
Why won't the NRA support Philando Castile? They're certainly taking a beating for that refusal! :(
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/06/20/why-won-nra-speak-out-about-philando-castile/6P6pIx7bHRQ0ZlwFJ7x4VJ/story.html
That topic has already been beaten to death on this forum in another thread...
As for the NRA taking a beating in one of the most liberal papers in the US... Nothing to see here. SSDD. They are just throwing crap at the wall to see if something can stick.
If the LEO's attorney advised him to not give a statement, he may be maneuvering to protect his client under guidelines established in the Supreme Court ruling - Garrity v. New Jersey.
He can still be "ordered" under departmental SOP to file a report and talk to IA. The "Garrity exclusion" just means that any statement he makes under orders by his agency can only be used internally by his agency as part of an internal investigation, and can not used as evidence against him in criminal proceedings, even if the same information probably will be seen by the DA. Sorry for the run-on...
While the information under Garrity is protected from prosecution. He can still be fired under department SOP if the IA investigation determines wrongdoing.
Since the BCA is not the MPD, Garrity "probably" does not apply. Sounds like he is taking the 5th...
Prayers to all involved. This situation just sucks.
He's allegedly claiming he refused to provide a statement on the advice of counsel, which may be a smart play in this case.
Absolutely. Anything he says can and will be used against him in subsequent hearings or in court, civil or criminal.
He isn't required to give a statement either by state law, or even Minneapolis PD policy. In this case, it's pretty clear IMHO that his career in law enforcement is done...he has nothing to gain by giving a statement. His partner apparently does want to stay on the job, so he's all in.
He can still be "ordered" under departmental SOP to file a report and talk to IA. The "Garrity exclusion" just means that any statement he makes under orders by his agency can only be used internally by his agency as part of an internal investigation, and can not used as evidence against him in criminal proceedings, even if the same information probably will be seen by the DA. Sorry for the run-on...
While the information under Garrity is protected from prosecution. He can still be fired under department SOP if the IA investigation determines wrongdoing.
Since the BCA is not the MPD, Garrity "probably" does not apply. Sounds like he is taking the 5th...
Prayers to all involved. This situation just sucks.
I'd trust Garrity protections just about as much as I'd trust the fed's "No FEAR" Act. They might not be able to use it directly and word for word, but you can bet the farm they'd parallel construct the hell out of it! :(
He can still be "ordered" under departmental SOP to file a report and talk to IA. The "Garrity exclusion" just means that any statement he makes under orders by his agency can only be used internally by his agency as part of an internal investigation, and can not used as evidence against him in criminal proceedings, even if the same information probably will be seen by the DA. Sorry for the run-on...
While the information under Garrity is protected from prosecution. He can still be fired under department SOP if the IA investigation determines wrongdoing.
Since the BCA is not the MPD, Garrity "probably" does not apply. Sounds like he is taking the 5th...
Prayers to all involved. This situation just sucks.
Once we hear whether or not a superior officer gave the officer a direct order to answer questions, we will have a better read on how the situation is being handled by the LEO's defense attorney.
I agree. Prayers to the friends and family of the woman who lost her life during the incident. Godspeed to her.
Once we hear whether or not a superior officer gave the officer a direct order to answer questions, we will have a better read on how the situation is being handled by the LEO's defense attorney.
It won't happen. Minneapolis PD policy is that such statements are completely voluntary and can't be compelled. I'm sure that Noor and his attorney are acutely aware of the barbecuing that Yanez got over the statement that he gave after the Philandro Castillo shooting. If Noor ultimately gives any statement at all, it's going to be extraordinarily bland.
figures pull the race card and bet the muslim card will pop up soon to
that IMHO shows he is guilty of something (ND etc..) cause now they are trying to divert !!!!
SomeOtherGuy
07-20-17, 11:25
Has this been posted yet?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4711080/Killer-cop-Noor-tells-story-Justine-startled-him.html
UK tabloid claims to have an exclusive with the officer's friends, reporting (secondhand account) that he was startled and shot the woman because of being startled. Go to link to read the claims for yourself.
Has this been posted yet?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4711080/Killer-cop-Noor-tells-story-Justine-startled-him.html
UK tabloid claims to have an exclusive with the officer's friends, reporting (secondhand account) that he was startled and shot the woman because of being startled. Go to link to read the claims for yourself.
Yes posted already.
Has this been posted yet?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4711080/Killer-cop-Noor-tells-story-Justine-startled-him.html
UK tabloid claims to have an exclusive with the officer's friends, reporting (secondhand account) that he was startled and shot the woman because of being startled. Go to link to read the claims for yourself.
After all the hoopla, with Minneapolis and MPD patting themselves on the back for having such a great candidate as their first Somali policeman, it will be interesting to see how they extract themselves from the multiple MPD policy violations, including the negligent discharge and the fact that he didn't activate his body camera. How are they going to fire this guy without looking stupid, or racist?
TBH, it may take them a while to figure out the victimology at play here. He's a Muslim immigrant, but she was apparently an extremely vocal anti-gun Aussie immigrant.[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't you think the MSM would be outraged about an anti-gun woman being shot by police officer? Just asking.
I'm thinking he came to the realization that he F'ed up about five seconds after he exited the vehicle. He might likely be feeling the whole system is working against him right about now. That's pretty human I would guess.
I don't know what advice legal counsel might be giving him, but he might want to take 72 hours or so to come down off the situation before giving a statement that might be more emotion than truth driven.
Yeah I am saying anyone who burns down their neighborhood and loots their neighbors business and plays the fool for the cameras all before the investigation is over is being an unreasonable jackwagon.
Your posts don't make any sense. In reality, we all know there aren't going to be any riots over the shooting of a White Woman. Why make up some PC drivel?
After my last post, I came across this yahoo article:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/officer-partner-fired-fatal-shot-moments-loud-sound-051017189.html
Basically said the officer was started by a loud noise. I've been joking for a long time and using colorful high speed low drag terminology that you guys surely will understand, "keep your booger hook off the bang switch".
So, "startled by a loud noise", like firearms in Somalia, is going to be the defense. He's suffering, like I said previously, from a form of PTSD that he acquired when he lived in Somalia. Poor guy...
What a bunch of hokey horse manure.
Eurodriver
07-20-17, 13:24
The lack of outrage says it all. And I can assure you its being said by progressives of the SJW persuasion. If this were a black woman shot by a cop it would be non-stop 7x24 news. Complete with BLM protests. You apparently have not been keeping up with current events. MSM caters to these people, for what reason I have yet to fathom.
I keep forgetting to add you to my ignore list. #2 on that list. Thanks for reminding me. I don't really believe in ignore lists, but I thought I'd try it on this forum to see if it makes any difference.
Ahh, yes. Because only reading viewpoints you agree with is such a healthy practice. I was banned for like 40 days and one post from a different perspective is enough to scare you off?
No wonder the Republican cucks can never get anything done. Too skeered.
So, "startled by a loud noise", like firearms in Somalia, is going to be the defense. He's suffering, like I said previously, from a form of PTSD that he acquired when he lived in Somalia. Poor guy...
What a bunch of hokey horse manure.
And how many LEOs in the US were mil who experienced their fair share of "loud noises" yet do an excellent job? I'd hope the prosecuting attorney points that out of that's actually the defense used is/when it goes to trail
TBH, it may take them a while to figure out the victimology at play here. He's a Muslim immigrant, but she was apparently an extremely vocal anti-gun Aussie immigrant.
Wouldn't you think the MSM would be outraged about an anti-gun woman being shot by police officer? Just asking. [/QUOTE]
That's exactly what I'm saying. They WANT to be outraged, but they're not quite sure how to do it without undermining their SJWarrioring for a black Muslim immigrant. Competing interests indeed. :(
Wouldn't you think the MSM would be outraged about an anti-gun woman being shot by police officer? Just asking.
That's exactly what I'm saying. They WANT to be outraged, but they're not quite sure how to do it without undermining their SJWarrioring for a black Muslim immigrant. Competing interests indeed. :(
The Left is certifiably insane. Even my Liberal Mother-in-law, told me she no longer wants to be considered a liberal. Now she says she's a moderate. She thinks these people are nuts. The thing is, I still blame her and everyone like her for not putting the brakes on the Dim party. They are fricking out of control too.
And how many LEOs in the US were mil who experienced their fair share of "loud noises" yet do an excellent job? I'd hope the prosecuting attorney points that out of that's actually the defense used is/when it goes to trail
Amen to that.
It won't happen. Minneapolis PD policy is that such statements are completely voluntary and can't be compelled.
From Minneapolis PD's website:
"MPD employees are required to give a statement when ordered to do so regarding matters pertaining to the scope of their employment and their fitness for duty. These statements or the fruits thereof, compelled as a condition of employment, cannot be then used in any criminal proceedings against the employee, except in cases of alleged perjury by the employee giving the statement (Garrity vs. New Jersey, 1967, U.S. Supreme Court)."
Continuing:
"All employees shall answer all questions truthfully and fully render material and relevant statements to a competent authority in an MPD investigation when compelled by a representative of the Employer, consistent with the constitutional rights of the individuals."
/end
Source: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/police/policy/mpdpolicy_2-100_2-100
No, not compelled in the sense that they'll lock him in a room until he talks, but Garrity in a nutshell compels the employee to give a statement with the protection from admissibility on one hand and the threat of significant discipline (usually termination) on the other.
Garrity in a nutshell compels the employee to give a statement with the protection from admissibility on one hand and the threat of significant discipline (usually termination) on the other.
Actually Garrity merely held that the governmental employer can not force self-incrimination by threatening termination, those statements are in admissible. That the employees were terminated was not the issue of the case and therefore was not reversed.
Syllabus: Appellants, police officers in certain New Jersey boroughs, were questioned during the course of a state investigation concerning alleged traffic ticket "fixing." Each officer was first warned that: anything he said might be used against him in a state criminal proceeding; he could refuse to answer if the disclosure would tend to incriminate him; if he refused to answer, he would be subject to removal from office. The officers' answers to the questions were used over their objections in subsequent prosecutions, which resulted in their convictions.
Held: 1. The forfeiture of office statute is too tangentially involved to satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S. C. § 1257(2). The only bearing it had was whether, valid or not, the choice between being discharged under it for refusal to answer and self-incrimination rendered the statements products of coercion. The appeal is dismissed, the papers are treated as a petition for certiorari, and certiorari is granted. Pp. 385 U. S. 495-496.
2. The threat of removal from public office under the forfeiture of office statute to induce the petitioners to forgo the privilege against self-incrimination secured by the Fourteenth Amendment rendered the resulting statements involuntary, and therefore inadmissible in the state criminal proceedings. Pp. 385 U. S. 496-500.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/493/case.html
In Uniformed Sanitation 1 we get the following decision:
Syllabus: In 1966, New York City began investigating allegations that employees of the Department of Sanitation were diverting disposal fees to themselves, defrauding the City of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Fifteen employees were summoned before the Commissioner of Sanitation, and each was informed that if they refused to answer on the basis of self-incrimination, they would be terminated in accordance with Section 1123 of the New York City Charter.
Twelve of them asserted their constitutional privilege and refused to testify, and were terminated.
Holding: Reversed. The termination of the employees was in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Reasoning: "Petitioners were not discharged merely for refusal to account for their conduct as employees of the city. They were dismissed for invoking and refusing to waive their constitutional right against self-incrimination" (283).
"They were entitled to remain silent because it was clear that New York was seeking, not merely an accounting of their use or abuse of the public trust, but testimony from their own lips which, despite the constitutional prohibition, could be used to prosecute them criminally" (284).
". . . if New York had demanded that petitioners answer questions specifically, directly, and narrowly relating to the performance of their official duties on pain of dismissal from public employment without requiring the relinquishment of the benefits of constitutional privilege, and if they had refused to do so, this case would be entirely different" (284).
Commentary: Garrity v. New Jersey and Uniformed Sanitation I can be viewed as a two-part package of rights. Garrity protects compelled statements from being used in a criminal proceeding, while Uniformed Sanitation I protects the employee from termination for refusing to self-incriminate. In other words, Garrity provides protections in regard to legal action (criminal proceedings), and Uniformed Sanitation I provides protections in regard to employer action (discipline). They are two sides of the same protective shield.
http://www.garrityrights.org/uniformed-sanitation-i.html
This decision led to Uniformed Sanitation II:
Syllabus: As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in "Uniformed Sanitation I," (392 U.S. 280), the Department of Sanitation employees who had been terminated were reinstated to their jobs on August 21, 1968.
The day they returned to work, they were summoned once again to appear before departmental management. They were informed that they had the right not to incriminate themselves, but that they could be subject to disciplinary action for failure to answer questions relating to the performance of their duties. They were also informed that any answers they would give, or any information which was gained as a result of their answers, could not be used against them in a criminal proceeding.
Despite the affirmation of use/derivative use immunity for their answers, they still refused to respond. They were then terminated once again, for refusing to answer the questions.
The parties returned to district court, which issued a summary judgment directing the reinstatement of the sanitation employees
Issue: Was it improper to terminate the employees for refusing to answer questions on the grounds of self-incrimination?
Holding: Reversed. The district court erred in directing the reinstatement of the sanitation employees.
Reasoning: ". . . 'use immunity' suffices for the discharge of public employees who 'refuse to account for their performance of their public trust'" (626).
"Granted that under Garrity the threat of dismissal constitutes compulsion, such a public employee given use immunity is not being required 'to be a witness against himself'" (626).
" . . . 'use immunity' . . . suffices to permit the discharge of a public employee who refuses to answer questions on the ground of self-incrimination . . ." (626).
". . . if a public officer is asked about the performance of his official duties and is not required to waive immunity, the privilege is not a bar to his dismissal for refusal to answer" (627).
"The proceeding here involved no attempt to coerce relinquishment of constitutional rights, because public employees do not have an absolute constitutional right to refuse to account for their official actions and still keep their jobs; their right, conferred by the Fifth Amendment itself, as construed in Garrity, is simply that neither what they say under such compulsion nor its fruits can be used against them in a subsequent prosecution" (627).
http://www.garrityrights.org/uniformed-sanitation-ii.html
This fascinating trail of events was revealed to me by a co-worker who picqued my interest in Garrity. All three cases meld together to give governmental employees of all type protection from self-incrimination.
To me the elephant in the room from the employees perspective is that although the admissions aren't to be allowed as evidence, there is no way to be absolutely sure that they can't be used to construct a parallel investigation. From my perspective, if you are in that big a jam, why would you say anything?
Actually Garrity merely held that the governmental employer can not force self-incrimination by threatening termination, those statements are in admissible. That the employees were terminated was not the issue of the case and therefore was not reversed.
Syllabus: Appellants, police officers in certain New Jersey boroughs, were questioned during the course of a state investigation concerning alleged traffic ticket "fixing." Each officer was first warned that: anything he said might be used against him in a state criminal proceeding; he could refuse to answer if the disclosure would tend to incriminate him; if he refused to answer, he would be subject to removal from office. The officers' answers to the questions were used over their objections in subsequent prosecutions, which resulted in their convictions.
Held: 1. The forfeiture of office statute is too tangentially involved to satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S. C. § 1257(2). The only bearing it had was whether, valid or not, the choice between being discharged under it for refusal to answer and self-incrimination rendered the statements products of coercion. The appeal is dismissed, the papers are treated as a petition for certiorari, and certiorari is granted. Pp. 385 U. S. 495-496.
2. The threat of removal from public office under the forfeiture of office statute to induce the petitioners to forgo the privilege against self-incrimination secured by the Fourteenth Amendment rendered the resulting statements involuntary, and therefore inadmissible in the state criminal proceedings. Pp. 385 U. S. 496-500.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/493/case.html
In Uniformed Sanitation 1 we get the following decision:
Syllabus: In 1966, New York City began investigating allegations that employees of the Department of Sanitation were diverting disposal fees to themselves, defrauding the City of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Fifteen employees were summoned before the Commissioner of Sanitation, and each was informed that if they refused to answer on the basis of self-incrimination, they would be terminated in accordance with Section 1123 of the New York City Charter.
Twelve of them asserted their constitutional privilege and refused to testify, and were terminated.
Holding: Reversed. The termination of the employees was in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Reasoning: "Petitioners were not discharged merely for refusal to account for their conduct as employees of the city. They were dismissed for invoking and refusing to waive their constitutional right against self-incrimination" (283).
"They were entitled to remain silent because it was clear that New York was seeking, not merely an accounting of their use or abuse of the public trust, but testimony from their own lips which, despite the constitutional prohibition, could be used to prosecute them criminally" (284).
". . . if New York had demanded that petitioners answer questions specifically, directly, and narrowly relating to the performance of their official duties on pain of dismissal from public employment without requiring the relinquishment of the benefits of constitutional privilege, and if they had refused to do so, this case would be entirely different" (284).
Commentary: Garrity v. New Jersey and Uniformed Sanitation I can be viewed as a two-part package of rights. Garrity protects compelled statements from being used in a criminal proceeding, while Uniformed Sanitation I protects the employee from termination for refusing to self-incriminate. In other words, Garrity provides protections in regard to legal action (criminal proceedings), and Uniformed Sanitation I provides protections in regard to employer action (discipline). They are two sides of the same protective shield.
http://www.garrityrights.org/uniformed-sanitation-i.html
This decision led to Uniformed Sanitation II:
Syllabus: As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in "Uniformed Sanitation I," (392 U.S. 280), the Department of Sanitation employees who had been terminated were reinstated to their jobs on August 21, 1968.
The day they returned to work, they were summoned once again to appear before departmental management. They were informed that they had the right not to incriminate themselves, but that they could be subject to disciplinary action for failure to answer questions relating to the performance of their duties. They were also informed that any answers they would give, or any information which was gained as a result of their answers, could not be used against them in a criminal proceeding.
Despite the affirmation of use/derivative use immunity for their answers, they still refused to respond. They were then terminated once again, for refusing to answer the questions.
The parties returned to district court, which issued a summary judgment directing the reinstatement of the sanitation employees
Issue: Was it improper to terminate the employees for refusing to answer questions on the grounds of self-incrimination?
Holding: Reversed. The district court erred in directing the reinstatement of the sanitation employees.
Reasoning: ". . . 'use immunity' suffices for the discharge of public employees who 'refuse to account for their performance of their public trust'" (626).
"Granted that under Garrity the threat of dismissal constitutes compulsion, such a public employee given use immunity is not being required 'to be a witness against himself'" (626).
" . . . 'use immunity' . . . suffices to permit the discharge of a public employee who refuses to answer questions on the ground of self-incrimination . . ." (626).
". . . if a public officer is asked about the performance of his official duties and is not required to waive immunity, the privilege is not a bar to his dismissal for refusal to answer" (627).
"The proceeding here involved no attempt to coerce relinquishment of constitutional rights, because public employees do not have an absolute constitutional right to refuse to account for their official actions and still keep their jobs; their right, conferred by the Fifth Amendment itself, as construed in Garrity, is simply that neither what they say under such compulsion nor its fruits can be used against them in a subsequent prosecution" (627).
http://www.garrityrights.org/uniformed-sanitation-ii.html
This fascinating trail of events was revealed to me by a co-worker who picqued my interest in Garrity. All three cases meld together to give governmental employees of all type protection from self-incrimination.
To me the elephant in the room from the employees perspective is that although the admissions aren't to be allowed as evidence, there is no way to be absolutely sure that they can't be used to construct a parallel investigation. From my perspective, if you are in that big a jam, why would you say anything?
That's exactly what it boils down to. If the agency or office failed to put in place checks and balances to ensure that evidence is discoverable by them to effectively prosecute criminal acts by it's employees, they are under no compulsion to draw them a map to it! :rolleyes:
Throwing Mohamed Noor under the bus.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5516019689001/?#sp=show-clips
From Minneapolis PD's website:
"MPD employees are required to give a statement when ordered to do so regarding matters pertaining to the scope of their employment and their fitness for duty. These statements or the fruits thereof, compelled as a condition of employment, cannot be then used in any criminal proceedings against the employee, except in cases of alleged perjury by the employee giving the statement (Garrity vs. New Jersey, 1967, U.S. Supreme Court)."
Continuing:
"All employees shall answer all questions truthfully and fully render material and relevant statements to a competent authority in an MPD investigation when compelled by a representative of the Employer, consistent with the constitutional rights of the individuals."
/end
Source: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/police/policy/mpdpolicy_2-100_2-100
No, not compelled in the sense that they'll lock him in a room until he talks, but Garrity in a nutshell compels the employee to give a statement with the protection from admissibility on one hand and the threat of significant discipline (usually termination) on the other.
Won't matter. He's going to be terminated anyway.
From Minneapolis PD's website:
"MPD employees are required to give a statement when ordered to do so regarding matters pertaining to the scope of their employment and their fitness for duty. These statements or the fruits thereof, compelled as a condition of employment, cannot be then used in any criminal proceedings against the employee, except in cases of alleged perjury by the employee giving the statement (Garrity vs. New Jersey, 1967, U.S. Supreme Court)."
Continuing:
"All employees shall answer all questions truthfully and fully render material and relevant statements to a competent authority in an MPD investigation when compelled by a representative of the Employer, consistent with the constitutional rights of the individuals."
/end
Source: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/police/policy/mpdpolicy_2-100_2-100
No, not compelled in the sense that they'll lock him in a room until he talks, but Garrity in a nutshell compels the employee to give a statement with the protection from admissibility on one hand and the threat of significant discipline (usually termination) on the other.
I made reference to Garrity vs New Jersey in an earlier post for those who are not familiar with the case. I've investigated a number of officer involved shooting incidents. In some cases an officer of higher rank gave the officer involved in the shooting incident a direct order to answer questions. If an officer refuses to answer questions, some agencies will initiate a disciplinary proceeding with the possibility of punishment up to and including termination of employment.
Throwing Mohamed Noor under the bus.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5516019689001/?#sp=show-clips
And now she (Minneapolis Police Chief) resigns......
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/21/minneapolis-police-chief-resigns-following-fatal-shooting-australian-woman.html
Throwing Mohamed Noor under the bus.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5516019689001/?#sp=show-clips
I caught some of this. My first impression... does she not own a hair brush?
sure she will be running for mayor next ;) or some other political area
And now she (Minneapolis Police Chief) resigns......
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/21/minneapolis-police-chief-resigns-following-fatal-shooting-australian-woman.html
Why would the Chief resign at the first sign of difficulty? This is the sort of thing that separates those with leadership qualities from those who are merely political appointees.
Why would the Chief resign at the first sign of difficulty? This is the sort of thing that separates those with leadership qualities from those who are merely political appointees.
At the request of the Mayor? That's what I read
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
At the request of the Mayor? That's what I read
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
There is still work to be done. There are roughly 800 other officers who work at the agency who need leadership to get them through this difficult time. A real leader would have pressed the Mayor to terminate their employment while standing up for the rest of the agency. This sounds a little too convenient.
At the request of the Mayor? That's what I read
I read the same.
FYI: Most Police Chiefs in most cities are nothing more than political appointees now days. "Usually" nothing more than a puppet on a string for the mayors and city councils that they serve at the will of.
I read the same.
FYI: Most Police Chiefs in most cities are nothing more than political appointees now days. "Usually" nothing more than a puppet on a string for the mayors and city councils that they serve at the will of.
And that is sad, very sad indeed. A police agency needs a warrior for a leader, not a manager.
also, read the mayor and chief has a beef going on?
something about mayor not liking who the police chief appointed in other areas or something as the mayor wanted to control who was put in charge in other precincts or something?
again just what I saw/read
The Mayor tried to hold another press conv. and protesters shut her down. They told her that she's next. Sounds like that Chief knows what's up. She made it clear what her feelings were on the shooting and now apparently how she feels about the Mayor.
Harteau, who worked her way up from the bottom of the department to become the city's first female, first openly gay and first Native American police chief, said she was proud of the work she accomplished and honored to serve as chief. But she said the shooting of 40-year-old Justine Damond by one of her officers and other incidents "have caused me to engage in deep reflection."
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/minneapolis-police-chief-resigns-after-fatal-shooting/ar-AAowPtl?li=BBnb7Kz&OCID=ansmsnnews11
From all I've read the government of Minneapolis has turned a blind eye to Somali gang crime for years. That Chief might actually be one of the good ones.
From all I've read the government of Minneapolis has turned a blind eye to Somali gang crime for years.
Anyone who has spent any time in Minneapolis and isn't blindly liberal will agree with the above statement.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-22-17, 01:14
from the bottom of the department to become the city's first female, first openly gay and first Native American police chief
Holy crap. This is serious. They sacrificed a unicorn.
Female, gay, Indian? That's like a trifecta. They don't even mention that she was probably a single mom too. When single mom doesn't even get mentioned, we are in some pretty rarified air.
That mayor better sew on a pecker, try to assassinate Trump and have HIV if she wants to survive.
Why would the Chief resign at the first sign of difficulty? This is the sort of thing that separates those with leadership qualities from those who are merely political appointees.
I'm well outside the Twin Cities and not subject to the silly political games that they play, but my understanding is that there has been tension between the police chief and the mayor for quite a while. My guess...when the chief disavowed Noor, she immediately got the resignation request from the mayor for not toeing the Somali diversity line.
My guess...when the chief disavowed Noor, she immediately got the resignation request from the mayor for not toeing the Somali diversity line.
My only problem is whatever happened to:
'The investigation is not complete, I understand that the woman had no weapon and that rightfully raises concerns. Those concerns will be answered by a complete impartial investigation conducted by the mean and women of the (enter agency here). Meanwhile I can assure you that the men and women of the Minneapolis PD hold the family of the dead women in their thoughts and prayers and are doing everything possible to ease their burden in this trying time.' (if that is in anyway true)
End result - addressed concerns, let them know concerns would be answered, officer not yet under bus.
There is no need for you or me or his Chief to defend the actions of a man who won't defend them himself. A public employee who won't give a statement about his actions on duty... bring on the bus, bring as many as you like.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-23-17, 09:31
A lot has been made of the silence of the usual pro-cop and pro-victim groups as proof of racism. But look at it this way, most of the time cops shoots are legit and the defense of the cop is rational and the advocating for the victim is irrational. Furgesson being the main example. What is racist about LEO organizations not supporting a cop in an inherently bad shoot? Isn't it racist for the groups not coming out to advocate for the unarmed woman.
So according to the driver they were pulling into the alley and the passenger officer had his gun out already incase of an ambush. They stopped and the victim ran up to the driver window. As she was running up there was a loud bang noise and the passenger officer leaned over and shot her. The driver officer didn't know what the loud noise was.
https://i.redd.it/tho6qx0f3ebz.jpg
How long was that in place?
If that is photoshopped they did a helluva job - down to the wires and stanchions visible through the holes on the side of the sign.
How long was that in place?
If that is photoshopped they did a helluva job - down to the wires and stanchions visible through the holes on the side of the sign.
Not photoshopped:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4725370/Justine-Damond-shooting-Fake-signs-posted-Minneapolis.html
Holy crap. This is serious. They sacrificed a unicorn.
Female, gay, Indian? That's like a trifecta. They don't even mention that she was probably a single mom too. When single mom doesn't even get mentioned, we are in some pretty rarified air.
That mayor better sew on a pecker, try to assassinate Trump and have HIV if she wants to survive.
I really miss you brother! LMAO!
They've shot some kids dogs now.
The kid goes home and types in the wrong code. That triggers the Police. One comes into the back yard and you can guess the rest. It's all over the national news now.The body cams are working again though and the PD is helping with the vet bills.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-24-17, 21:25
I really miss you brother! LMAO!
Been too long. I have my son shooting now at 22lr competitions and he wants to start running 3-gun. Love for you to meet him. Still think of you everytime I see a nice BHP.
Averageman
07-24-17, 23:57
Some people weren't meant to be Cops. All of the feel-good isn't going to change that.
Rolling up to the call with a drawn weapon should have been a real indicator that this guy was wrapped a bit too tight.
Add in the diversity factor for the obvious reason that diversity is more important than "To Protect and Serve" has become and here is your result.
Just reported on Fox News that the woman who was shot, "slapped" the cruiser after approaching the driver side door. This seems significant, as I have a friend who is former LE who once described a similar situation. He said he was on a call with a "regular 911 caller", and as he was speaking with the guy, the guy's friend began "slapping" the car. He said initially, he thought he was being shot at....to the point he pulled the car forward rapidly. After realizing what had happened, he got out and chewed the guys ass.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Averageman
07-25-17, 18:18
Just reported on Fox News that the woman who was shot, "slapped" the cruiser after approaching the driver side door. This seems significant, as I have a friend who is former LE who once described a similar situation. He said he was on a call with a "regular 911 caller", and as he was speaking with the guy, the guy's friend began "slapping" the car. He said initially, he thought he was being shot at....to the point he pulled the car forward rapidly. After realizing what had happened, he got out and chewed the guys ass.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The "Perfect Storm". All these events, every silly idea and action from hiring practises, unholstered pistols in the cab, taking a walk outside to "interview" some cops looking for someone being assaulted and now we find out she smacked the car as she walked up on it.
The whole thing sounds like a bad movie.
It would be a good comedy if it weren't so damned tragic.
The "Perfect Storm". All these events, every silly idea and action from hiring practises, unholstered pistols in the cab, taking a walk outside to "interview" some cops looking for someone being assaulted and now we find out she smacked the car as she walked up on it.
The whole thing sounds like a bad movie.
It would be a good comedy if it weren't so damned tragic.
Agreed. Bad all around.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
wilson1911
07-25-17, 18:34
Doesn't it strike anyone funny that a hottie in PJ's would strike a cop car with her hand ?
Averageman
07-25-17, 18:53
Doesn't it strike anyone funny that a hottie in PJ's would strike a cop car with her hand ?
Normal People thinking normally would understand that if you need to call the Police to investigate something at night, they don't need your help.
If they have some questions, they have your name and address if you did your part correctly.
Going out in the dark looking for them and then hitting the car when She found them makes me consider "Angry Liberal with Agenda."
Depending on your occupation, there are often people very willing to tell you how to do your job.
SomeOtherGuy
07-25-17, 19:59
Normal People thinking normally would understand that if you need to call the Police to investigate something at night, they don't need your help.
I think you are giving "normal people thinking" far too much credit. I can easily imagine a random person with no LE mindset or background thinking that it makes perfect sense to go out and meet the police when they arrive and tell them everything they know. Someone who considers themselves 100% law-abiding and has an ingrained complete trust of police would probably think this 10 times as hard.
The optics would be different if the person who got shot was a large, aggressive man, ideally dressed in black and carrying something that could be confused with a firearm. But it's a little hard to believe that a 40yo blonde woman in PJs would be immediately identified as a lethal threat and neutralized, whether or not she slapped the car.
There are close cases. There are cases where an innocent person was shot but you can understand the LEO's view at the time and excuse (in the legal sense) the shooting. I see no reason to think that this incident is anywhere close to that type of situation.
Just reported on Fox News that the woman who was shot, "slapped" the cruiser after approaching the driver side door. This seems significant, as I have a friend who is former LE who once described a similar situation. He said he was on a call with a "regular 911 caller", and as he was speaking with the guy, the guy's friend began "slapping" the car. He said initially, he thought he was being shot at....to the point he pulled the car forward rapidly. After realizing what had happened, he got out and chewed the guys ass.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Context is also significant. Do you think that if your friend was responding to a rape in progress and he knew for a fact a "female slapped the rear of his SUV" that he would not think... holy cow, is this the woman that was being raped? Or would he simply think... WTF was that? I'm pretty sure it would be the former.
The statements say... " A female slapped the car" Not a loud noise, not something unknown... You are responding to a rape call. You witness a female slap your car.... between the two of them, do you not think at least there was a 50/50 chance that one of them might think damsel in distress?
Responding to a rape, it's dark, no cameras on, gun drawn, two officers, condition red, they see a female slap the car.
The response is to shoot her? What if it had been the woman being raped and struggling to get their attention?
It just doesn't add up. The "slap" sounds like something that has been intentionally leaked to create a false story line in attempt to redirect blame to the woman.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-25-17, 22:10
Someone has to say it:
Go slap yourself...
Doesn't it strike anyone funny that a hottie in PJ's would strike a cop car with her hand ?
Fortunately the police video will confirm or dispel that allegation. Ohh... Wait... Nevermind... :(
Context is also significant. Do you think that if your friend was responding to a rape in progress and he knew for a fact a "female slapped the rear of his SUV" that he would not think... holy cow, is this the woman that was being raped? Or would he simply think... WTF was that? I'm pretty sure it would be the former.
The statements say... " A female slapped the car" Not a loud noise, not something unknown... You are responding to a rape call. You witness a female slap your car.... between the two of them, do you not think at least there was a 50/50 chance that one of them might think damsel in distress?
Responding to a rape, it's dark, no cameras on, gun drawn, two officers, condition red, they see a female slap the car.
The response is to shoot her? What if it had been the woman being raped and struggling to get their attention?
It just doesn't add up. The "slap" sounds like something that has been intentionally leaked to create a false story line in attempt to redirect blame to the woman.
Not drawing any conclusions...this friend of mine is a combat vet, and had been in vehicles that were shot before this.
I'm just telling you what he told me. You are free to draw whatever conclusion YOU like, obviously.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fortunately the police video will confirm or dispel that allegation. Ohh... Wait... Nevermind... :(
Exactly...[emoji57]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This required people to be shot:
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/Baltimore-Riots.jpg
A woman slapping a police car is not one of them.
Eurodriver
07-26-17, 05:27
Lol Metro PCS
A woman slapped the car.
Who?
The officer didn't say it was the victim that slapped their car.
Since when is a slap on the car, warrant gun fire?
The shooter still isn't talking.
My gut still says it was an islamic thing.
wilson1911
07-26-17, 07:48
If she did slap the car, where are her fingerprints ?
By inserting this one statement, it does change the whole dynamics.
Normally a woman will have her arms folded under her breasts as a form of self protection/barrier in a nervous situation, not walking up to a car and slapping it.
Whiskey_Bravo
07-26-17, 07:49
It just doesn't add up. The "slap" sounds like something that has been intentionally leaked to create a false story line in attempt to redirect blame to the woman.
This. First reports were a loud noise, possibly a firework. Now it's the victim that for some reason slapped the back of the car.
On a side note, if slapping a car is ground for lethal force we have come a long way down the wrong road.
Whiskey_Bravo
07-26-17, 07:50
If she did slap the car, where are her fingerprints ?
By inserting this one statement, it does change the whole dynamics.
Normally a woman will have her arms folded under her breasts as a form of self protection/barrier in a nervous situation, not walking up to a car and slapping it.
Even though it shouldn't matter, if they say she slapped the car her finger prints better be there. Enough of this story doesn't add up already.
waiting for some to now use the excuse of deadly force! they slapped my car
If she did slap the car, where are her fingerprints ?
By inserting this one statement, it does change the whole dynamics.
Normally a woman will have her arms folded under her breasts as a form of self protection/barrier in a nervous situation, not walking up to a car and slapping it.
Fingerprints aren't like what you see on CSI - it is not likely that you would leave classifiable fingerprints on a surface such as a vehicle by slapping it.
In terms of arms folded under her breasts - not if she was angry because of a slow response (minutes seem like hours when you are waiting for the police to arrive).
Still it obviously does not look good.
Folks need to keep in mind there are well over 600,000 police in the United States, 99.99% of them will never do anything this egregious in their career.
Not drawing any conclusions...this friend of mine is a combat vet, and had been in vehicles that were shot before this.
I'm just telling you what he told me. You are free to draw whatever conclusion YOU like, obviously.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just to be clear, I'm not questioning you or your friend. I'm just saying that my belief is this... if your friend was looking for a rape victim in an alley and a woman in pajamas slapped the back of his SUV, I believe he would go into "get out and save her" mode and not "get out and kick her ass" mode. The context would be correct in his mind. That's a lot different from just say sitting at light and all of a sudden there is slamming and banging on your car.
One 'slap' by a woman in context of a rape in progress VS banging on the car for no apparent reason context.
SomeOtherGuy
07-26-17, 10:09
I believe he would go into "get out and save her" mode and not "get out and kick her ass" mode.
"get out and kick her ass" mode would still be a million times better than "shoot her through the door while endangering my partner" mode.
A woman slapped the car.
Who?
The officer didn't say it was the victim that slapped their car.
Since when is a slap on the car, warrant gun fire?
The shooter still isn't talking.
My gut still says it was an islamic thing.
One "scenario" I read was this. Actually this is a combination of two
They drive into the ally with no squad lights on. Her house is halfway down the alley.
About halfway down and just past her house they hear a noise. Then as they continue a kid passes them on a bicycle on the passenger side. He was up to 25 years old and apparently they could tell he was not a rape suspect. Right after he passes the woman shows up on the driver side and is shot. Now at this time the Patrol SUV is about 8 houses down the alley from the victims house. Almost at the corner of the alley and the street at the far end from where they entered, or half a block away from her home.
I'm just guessing but it seems like maybe the woman was in her yard waiting to see them and they drove past her. Maybe she then ran into the alley and slapped the car to get their attention. At the same time a kid is riding by on his bike. Kind of a Norman Rockwell moment in suburbia.
Just to be clear, I'm not questioning you or your friend. I'm just saying that my belief is this... if your friend was looking for a rape victim in an alley and a woman in pajamas slapped the back of his SUV, I believe he would go into "get out and save her" mode and not "get out and kick her ass" mode. The context would be correct in his mind. That's a lot different from just say sitting at light and all of a sudden there is slamming and banging on your car.
One 'slap' by a woman in context of a rape in progress VS banging on the car for no apparent reason context.
I don't disagree.
This is problematic on many levels. While I still would like to wait for further info, as 26 said, it doesn't look good.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-26-17, 11:51
I assumed that the loud noise was her back gate slamming shut as she entered the alley.
when I see stolen car or other chases of cars and the car hitting others crashing through stuff running intersections and so on
cant say I ever watched a cop get out and shoot the perps that are now running from stolen car? I wish they would :)
got to love NOT hiring qualified people but instead they fit a political check box instead
Moose-Knuckle
07-27-17, 05:55
The lack of outrage says it all. And I can assure you its being said by progressives of the SJW persuasion. If this were a black woman shot by a cop it would be non-stop 7x24 news. Complete with BLM protests.
This x ∞.
Well that didn't take long:
"Noor, a Somali-born American has also said he feels isolated for his race and friend said: 'His feeling is "I am an immigrant, a Muslim and not white."'
And I didn't even know this was an option for post OIS investigations:
"The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), which is investigating the shooting, said in a statement Tuesday that he had declined to be interviewed and that his attorney had not said if or when an interview would take place."
The LEO can just lawyer up without being interviewed? I'm trying not to go there, but will be viewed as an admission of guilt by many.
Unless the media reports we continue to see are wildly inaccurate (always possible) it seems he really fU&^3d up.
So a Somalian born Black LEO shoots and murders an unarmed White woman and all he can do is claim this is a witch hunt because he is Black, a muslim, and an immigrant.
America in 2017, got to ****ing love it.
This...
It just doesn't add up. The "slap" sounds like something that has been intentionally leaked to create a false story line in attempt to redirect blame to the woman.
And this...
A woman slapped the car.
Who?
The officer didn't say it was the victim that slapped their car.
Since when is a slap on the car, warrant gun fire?
The shooter still isn't talking.
My gut still says it was an islamic thing.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-27-17, 11:13
Sometimes things are as simple as a crappy cop. We don't need an overarching social theory to explain stupidity.
Sometimes things are as simple as a crappy cop. We don't need an overarching social theory to explain stupidity.
Thank you. This thread was moving further off the rails as conspiracy theory began working its way into the conversation and mental masturbation became a more prominent component. IMHO, it was most likely a cop who unwisely and against policy had his gun drawn in the car, the woman approached, something startled him, and negligent discharge happened. His partner driving the car should be thanking HIS lucky stars that it wasn't him that was shot, which probably should have been more likely.
Averageman
07-27-17, 13:29
Sometimes things are as simple as a crappy cop. We don't need an overarching social theory to explain stupidity.
Pretty Much All of This !
dwhitehorne
07-27-17, 14:01
Thank you. This thread was moving further off the rails as conspiracy theory began working its way into the conversation and mental masturbation became a more prominent component. IMHO, it was most likely a cop who unwisely and against policy had his gun drawn in the car, the woman approached, something startled him, and negligent discharge happened. His partner driving the car should be thanking HIS lucky stars that it wasn't him that was shot, which probably should have been more likely.
This is exactly what I'm thinking.
Thank you. This thread was moving further off the rails as conspiracy theory began working its way into the conversation and mental masturbation became a more prominent component. IMHO, it was most likely a cop who unwisely and against policy had his gun drawn in the car, the woman approached, something startled him, and negligent discharge happened. His partner driving the car should be thanking HIS lucky stars that it wasn't him that was shot, which probably should have been more likely.
Aptly put.
Thank you. This thread was moving further off the rails as conspiracy theory began working its way into the conversation and mental masturbation became a more prominent component. IMHO, it was most likely a cop who unwisely and against policy had his gun drawn in the car, the woman approached, something startled him, and negligent discharge happened. His partner driving the car should be thanking HIS lucky stars that it wasn't him that was shot, which probably should have been more likely.
Hence the title and OP. That's been my working hypothesis all along from initial reports.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-27-17, 15:34
Hence the title and OP. That's been my working hypothesis all along from initial reports.
I thought you meant MN was becoming another ND. That would be a big step down state wise, dontchaknow.
I thought you meant MN was becoming another ND. That would be a big step down state wise, dontchaknow.
Having never been to ND, I will refrain from offering an opinion on that one. I can say I have never had an interest in visiting MN...
Having never been to ND, I will refrain from offering an opinion on that one. I can say I have never had an interest in visiting MN...
The people in the upper plains states (I include Wisconsin in that category) are some of the nicest folks you'll ever want to meet.
I'm sure you can find exceptions to the rule but I've always found that to be true.
Plus, who can resist a cute lass with the Norwegian accent 'Minnesoooota.'
The people in the upper plains states (I include Wisconsin in that category) are some of the nicest folks you'll ever want to meet.
I'm sure you can find exceptions to the rule but I've always found that to be true.
Plus, who can resist a cute lass with the Norwegian accent 'Minnesoooota.'
Not gonna lie, I wanna cut my ears off when I hear a MN accent.
Having never been to ND, I will refrain from offering an opinion on that one. I can say I have never had an interest in visiting MN...
I've been trying to get you an invitation, but we are picky. Dontcha' know...
Not gonna lie, I wanna cut my ears off when I hear a MN accent.
About the only place you hear a "Minnesota accent" is the movie Fargo. You might be thinking of Yoopers.
I've been trying to get you an invitation, but we are picky. Dontcha' know...
It's not a slam on MN per se, I just can't think of anything the state has to offer that would be of interest to me so never came up on the radar screen
Whiskey_Bravo
07-27-17, 17:05
It's not a slam on MN per se, I just can't think of anything the state has to offer that would be of interest to me so never came up on the radar screen
Well, MN does have the Mayo Clinic... so if you are really sick it would be worth the trip. I lived there for 3 years while my wife worked at Mayo. Being from Texas my first winter was pretty cool(snow doesn't insta melt), then the second winter I decided that it was worthless frozen tundra and I hated it.
Well, MN does have the Mayo Clinic... so if you are really sick it would be worth the trip. I lived there for 3 years while my wife worked at Mayo. Being from Texas my first winter was pretty cool(snow doesn't insta melt), then the second winter I decided that it was worthless frozen tundra and I hated it.
So far, the Mayo is about the only thing that comes to mind that would be a motivator. I left NE because cold and snow suck nads.
Averageman
07-27-17, 18:03
I'm just thinking;
If I'm in a car and the guy I'm working with is a bit nervous and he decides that pulling his weapon from his holster while we are moving is in the best interest of our safety when;
A) There is no visible threat.
B) We don't have a positive identification of an actual crime.
C) Currently No One either of us can see is being assaulted.
I really need a different partner. I mean, I really, really need a different partner.
I'm pretty sure we aren't going to read about all of the problems and chaos this guy has caused, it is likely embarrassing even to the people who forced him upon Police Department, but if you've read this thread front to rear, it is clear Police work might have not been his forte.
It might take a very long time to develop a "Standard" but the "Standard" has served us well. Deviating from the "Standards" developed over perhaps Decades or even a Century may make liberals feel good for a moment, but this is a very good example of why we stick with "Standards".
Not everyone is cut out to bear the Standard, that's what make those people who are "Standard Bearers" so unique and why they have a key place in our society.
Should everyone get a chance to prove themselves, well certainly, as long as they meet the "Standard."
It Actually really is that Simple.
I'm just thinking;
If I'm in a car and the guy I'm working with is a bit nervous and he decides that pulling his weapon from his holster while we are moving is in the best interest of our safety when;
A) There is no visible threat.
B) We don't have a positive identification of an actual crime.
C) Currently No One either of us can see is being assaulted.
I really need a different partner. I mean, I really, really need a different partner.
I'm pretty sure we aren't going to read about all of the problems and chaos this guy has caused, it is likely embarrassing even to the people who forced him upon Police Department, but if you've read this thread front to rear, it is clear Police work might have not been his forte.
It might take a very long time to develop a "Standard" but the "Standard" has served us well. Deviating from the "Standards" developed over perhaps Decades or even a Century may make liberals feel good for a moment, but this is a very good example of why we stick with "Standards".
Not everyone is cut out to bear the Standard, that's what make those people who are "Standard Bearers" so unique and why they have a key place in our society.
Should everyone get a chance to prove themselves, well certainly, as long as they meet the "Standard."
It Actually really is that Simple.
Good points.
Moose-Knuckle
07-28-17, 03:45
About the only place you hear a "Minnesota accent" is the movie Fargo. You might be thinking of Yoopers.
I have a friend from far northern Michigan and her entire family sound like they're from Canada or the cast of Fargo.
I have a friend from far northern Michigan and her entire family sound like they're from Canada or the cast of Fargo.
Interesting article:
Upper Peninsula (U.P.) English,[1] also known as Yooper English,[2] or colloquially as Yoopanese,[3] is a variety of American English native to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (locally abbreviated as "U.P." and the basis for the endonym "Yooper"). Upper Peninsula English is considered a subset of North Central (or Upper Midwestern) English, an American regional dialect, or set of dialects, in transition.[4] Although spoken throughout the U.P., it is primarily spoken in the western U.P.,[citation needed] and not all residents use these features. Equally important[according to whom?] is that many of these features are found throughout the Upper Midwest, especially in northern Wisconsin and northern Minnesota and to a degree in the northern lower peninsula of Michigan.
Yooper differs from standard English primarily because of the linguistic background of settlers to the area. The majority of people living in the Upper Peninsula are of Finnish, French Canadian, Cornish, Scandinavian, German, or Native American descent. The Yooper dialect is also influenced by the Finnish language making it similar in character to the so-called "Rayncher speek" (presumably an eye dialect spelling of "Ranger speak")[clarification needed] spoken in the Mesabi Iron Range in northeast Minnesota. Almost half the Finnish immigrants to the U.S. settled in the Upper Peninsula, some joining Scandinavians who moved on to Minnesota.
At least...interesting to me. I lived on the Mesabi Iron Range for a few years and can attest to the influence that Finnish immigration has on the local dialect. Rest of Minnesota...not so much. I've lived in the Brainerd area, home base for the characters in the movie Fargo, area for about 30 years and that dialect is as foreign to the locals here as it is to Will, although most can tolerate it better than Will.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-28-17, 07:38
Have them say,
Out and about in a boat.
Even they can hear it then.
I've always been able to discern the officers coming down from Minnesota going through our Academy.
Plus, for a short time I was doing a part time gig doing out bound calling I could definitely tell when I was calling in that area. Not only the 'ooh' but unfailingly polite. (I hated the gig but the wife was in nursing school and I got the part time gig to pay for the expenses of school and her not working.)
SomeOtherGuy
07-28-17, 13:59
Never mind
Have them say,
Out and about in a boat.
Even they can hear it then.
That's Canada. "Taking the boot oot fer a spin aboot the lake".
Edit to add: "Eh"?
Minnesota: nice state except for politics. Twin Cities aren't nearly as cold as their reputation. But the current politics are incomprehensible, and if you look at the state's political history its politics have been strange, and mostly bipolar, for many decades.
You betcha! That's fer sure!
SomeOtherGuy
07-28-17, 20:29
You betcha! That's fer sure!
Darn tootin!
Moose-Knuckle
07-29-17, 03:54
Interesting article: At least...interesting to me. I lived on the Mesabi Iron Range for a few years and can attest to the influence that Finnish immigration has on the local dialect. Rest of Minnesota...not so much. I've lived in the Brainerd area, home base for the characters in the movie Fargo, area for about 30 years and that dialect is as foreign to the locals here as it is to Will, although most can tolerate it better than Will.
Interesting indeed.
I always find regional accents of interest.
I'll never forget the time I heard a retired game warden from Maine speak, until then I had never heard such a dialect. Thought he was cajun at first until I had a light bulb go off on the French influence of that region much like in Louisiana.
How far north? Hint: if you don't have to cross the Mac, it's barely up north; and if you only have to cross one large bridge, it's not all that far north. :) (Alternate test: does it get more than 100" of snow every winter?)
The Yooper accent is mostly a movie/comedy thing at this point. I've heard it in real life mostly with older guys in Ishpeming. Most people from out of the area probably couldn't understand them any better than I could understand the tour guide at the Kentucky Horse Park many years ago. However, very few if any people under 50 have a significant Yooper accent.
A lot of the regional accents still exist but have changed in their details. I can identify a Canadian in about 10 seconds, but it's not the same speech cues you'd get from the Canadian stereotypes of 1970's comedy.
Minnesota: nice state except for politics. Twin Cities aren't nearly as cold as their reputation. But the current politics are incomprehensible, and if you look at the state's political history its politics have been strange, and mostly bipolar, for many decades.
Not sure exactly where but she said it was in the country close to the Canadian border. Her accent is not that strong as she was in the Navy moved around and is now a Texan but she said her father sounded like a Canuck.
SomeOtherGuy
12-18-17, 13:25
So as of December 14, no charges have been brought.
Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman told a group of union members Wednesday that he does not have enough evidence to decide yet whether he'll file charges against Minneapolis police officer Mohamed Noor, and he blamed "investigators" for not doing their jobs.
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2017/12/14/ruszczyk-damond-freeman-noor-minneapolis-police-shooting
OH, BUT WAIT! Guess what?
Minneapolis To Reduce Police Psych Testing After Screening Out Too Many Minorities
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/15/minneapolis-to-reduce-police-psych-testing-after-screening-out-too-many-minorities/
Nobody wants to True Bill the skinny.
Of course not.
Meh, I dont put much into psych tests really. I've known some people who pass all that and still do horrid stuff.
You get the police you deserve.
"You get the police you deserve."
Not entirely sure about that, but we seem to be getting to the point where all bets are off.
Robert Peel’s Principles of Policing, 1829:
The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it..
Peel’s nine principles laid out the framework for police conduct in any society in which it is necessary for the police to work closely with citizens and have their respect. Remarkably, these principles are as valid today as they were when they were first developed over 150 years ago.
My point is if you get sorry police to fill quotas or feel liberal then you dont deserve good police.
Same applies to doctors. If you are down with dudes dancing in a circle with beheaded chicken smearing blood on you cure your carinogenic herpesyphigonolaids then you dont deserve good doctors.
Regressivism.
SomeOtherGuy
03-21-18, 12:59
The officer who shot the woman has now been charged with third-degree murder:
http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-police-officer-mohamed-noor-turns-himself-in-on-charges-in-justine-damond-killing/477405923/
The officer who shot the woman has now been charged with third-degree murder:
http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-police-officer-mohamed-noor-turns-himself-in-on-charges-in-justine-damond-killing/477405923/
He hurt himself by refusing to ever give a statement. Everybody turned on him, including the politicians that forced him into the department.
Waiting to see if my station mentions this on air. Sent the link to the producers, and the SJW who refused to run coverage of the original event left a few months ago.
Waiting to see if my station mentions this on air. Sent the link to the producers, and the SJW who refused to run coverage of the original event left a few months ago.
Don't hold your breath. The shooter was a social justice prized pony who got fast tracked through training. In field training he was recommended for termination several times but the city kept him on because he "improved relationships" with the local Somali population. I think the charges are warranted. He reached over his partner and smoked the victim/ reporting party they were going to meet as she approached their patrol car.
Don't hold your breath. The shooter was a social justice prized pony who got fast tracked through training. In field training he was recommended for termination several times but the city kept him on because he "improved relationships" with the local Somali population. I think the charges are warranted. He reached over his partner and smoked the victim/ reporting party they were going to meet as she approached their patrol car.
I know, I followed this closely when it first happened (was putting in 90 hour work weeks). The SJW referred to was a producer that all the management allowed to do what-ever she wanted because of fear she would file either a sexual discrimination complaint or a racism complaint. Since then our owners want more coverage of events in the Twin Cities as they actually fall into our coverage region. Will be interesting to see if the News Director will do what she is told, or continue her SJW campaign as well. Guessing its about 50/50 if we report on this if CBS doesn't.
Moose-Knuckle
03-21-18, 15:59
The officer who shot the woman has now been charged with third-degree murder:
http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-police-officer-mohamed-noor-turns-himself-in-on-charges-in-justine-damond-killing/477405923/
Well I guess that is something....
In either civilian or LE, in cases where there is no malice, no self-induced impairment, and no indications of predisposition/bias impacting the action, I have a hard time getting behind the sentences they are talking about.
In this case, after reading the statute, me thinks this is politicking. I think there is a distinct possibility they are over-charging for a reason:
609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.
This is the the sticking point: Depravity of mind refers to the state of mind which is contrary to justice, honesty or morality. Depravity of mind is a condition where there is a deviation or departure from the ordinary standards of honest, good morals, justice, or ethics as to be shocking to the moral sense of the society. Depravity of mind can also be described as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a person and social duties which a person owes to another, or to a community. https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/depravity-of-mind/
I don't think a jury will find his actions rose to that level.
I think we also need to remember that the family will no doubt reach a several million dollar settlement with the PD for wrongful death.
In either civilian or LE, in cases where there is no malice, no self-induced impairment, and no indications of predisposition/bias impacting the action, I have a hard time getting behind the sentences they are talking about.
In this case, after reading the statute, me thinks this is politicking.
Right after they instruct the jury can't consider a lesser charge?
In either civilian or LE, in cases where there is no malice, no self-induced impairment, and no indications of predisposition/bias impacting the action, I have a hard time getting behind the sentences they are talking about.
In this case, after reading the statute, me thinks this is politicking. I think there is a distinct possibility they are over-charging for a reason:
609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.
This is the the sticking point: Depravity of mind refers to the state of mind which is contrary to justice, honesty or morality. Depravity of mind is a condition where there is a deviation or departure from the ordinary standards of honest, good morals, justice, or ethics as to be shocking to the moral sense of the society. Depravity of mind can also be described as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a person and social duties which a person owes to another, or to a community. https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/depravity-of-mind/
I don't think a jury will find his actions rose to that level.
I think we also need to remember that the family will no doubt reach a several million dollar settlement with the PD for wrongful death.
How much (if any) time do you think he should actually serve?
Right after they instruct the jury can't consider a lesser charge? 3rd degree murder is a big stretch. Not likely. Manslaughter is more likely, but I wouldn’t discount the likelihood that he’ll plead down to something like negligent homicide.
How much (if any) time do you think he should actually serve?
I'm probably not the one to ask, but you did:
Here are the things I would consider: 1) he was sent to the location versus self-initiated; 2) by all reports the woman's approach took him by surprise; 3) there was apparently no malice involved.
Based on that - he needs to be decertified as an LEO in such a manner that he won't be able to get a job in some backwater community in another state. I'd go with time served and probation. The felony conviction alone is going to screw him up, plus he has to live with the knowledge that his error killed a woman.
As I said, the taxpayers of the community are going to pay the family of the woman for the city's negligence in hiring, retention and training.
I'm a softy, though.
SomeOtherGuy
03-21-18, 20:05
Right after they instruct the jury can't consider a lesser charge?
I only mentioned the most serious charge, but the article says he "was charged Tuesday with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter eight months after the case sparked protests, international outrage and the firing of the city’s police chief."
I'm well aware of the game of overcharging for politics and getting an acquittal by design. I don't know this city or DA but do not, as of now, see that as the scheme.
I'm probably not the one to ask, but you did:
Here are the things I would consider: 1) he was sent to the location versus self-initiated; 2) by all reports the woman's approach took him by surprise; 3) there was apparently no malice involved.
1: yes; 2: apparently but let's get full testimony; 3: I have no data either way.
This may be just a case of a completely incompetent and unsuitable person doing something predictably stupid because they were that far out of their ability. But someone is dead, and killing someone through incompetence is often a manslaughter conviction.
If the facts develop that he was simply incompetent and unsuitable, not malicious, it might be worth asking if someone in the hiring and retention chain of command should also face criminal charges for their own negligence resulting in an innocent person's death.
3rd degree murder is a big stretch. Not likely. Manslaughter is more likely, but I wouldn’t discount the likelihood that he’ll plead down to something like negligent homicide.
IIRC he was charged with both Murder 3 and Manslaughter. The murder 3 is the reach charge, manslaughter is the most likely conviction.
IIRC he was charged with both Murder 3 and Manslaughter. The murder 3 is the reach charge, manslaughter is the most likely conviction.
Thanks for the correction.
I'm probably not the one to ask, but you did:
Here are the things I would consider: 1) he was sent to the location versus self-initiated; 2) by all reports the woman's approach took him by surprise; 3) there was apparently no malice involved.
Based on that - he needs to be decertified as an LEO in such a manner that he won't be able to get a job in some backwater community in another state. I'd go with time served and probation. The felony conviction alone is going to screw him up, plus he has to live with the knowledge that his error killed a woman.
As I said, the taxpayers of the community are going to pay the family of the woman for the city's negligence in hiring, retention and training.
I'm a softy, though.
I think he needs at least a bit of in prison time, but I'm a bit of a hardcase when it comes to that.
I'm probably not the one to ask, but you did:
Here are the things I would consider: 1) he was sent to the location versus self-initiated; 2) by all reports the woman's approach took him by surprise; 3) there was apparently no malice involved.
Based on that - he needs to be decertified as an LEO in such a manner that he won't be able to get a job in some backwater community in another state. I'd go with time served and probation. The felony conviction alone is going to screw him up, plus he has to live with the knowledge that his error killed a woman.
As I said, the taxpayers of the community are going to pay the family of the woman for the city's negligence in hiring, retention and training.
I'm a softy, though.
It will come down to perception of the threat once the case goes to trial. We won't learn the officer's perception until the defense presents it's case.
There is no question the officer should never work as a LEO again. If it is proven the officer engaged in a reckless act that caused the woman's death, and he is convicted of the appropriate criminal statute, he should serve a lengthy prison sentence.
A LEO should be held to a much higher standard of conduct than an untrained individual when it comes to the application of deadly force.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.