Author Topic: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action  (Read 288817 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10848
    • View Profile
Law Enforcement issues, Trial of the Minneapolis cop begins
« Reply #650 on: April 03, 2019, 06:17:29 AM »
Many threads this affects, so please guide me.  Days one and two so far are jury selection and media issues.

I am generally a big defender of law enforcement but once in a while they are in the wrong and of what we know so far this appears to be one of those cases.

Many will recall that Minneapolis' first Somali American cop, from the passenger seat of the squad car, reached across his partner and fatally shot the Australian national woman in her pajamas who was approaching the car unarmed to report further on what she called in as the disturbance (a few blocks from my own south Mpls property).

Mohammed Noor is about to get a fair trial and likely tell his side of the story for the first time.

Scott Johnson of Powerline is trying to get press credentials and writes about his difficulties with the court's denial: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/04/a-personal-note-on-the-noor-trial.php

More to come.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 46627
    • View Profile
Re: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action
« Reply #651 on: April 03, 2019, 09:07:59 AM »
Looking forward to your continuing reports!


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10848
    • View Profile
Re: Law Enforcement issues, Trial of the Minneapolis cop begins
« Reply #653 on: April 16, 2019, 09:10:46 AM »
The trial goes on with the prosecution calling everyone who came to the scene and all they are finding is an absence of evidence of reason for a shooting.

Our man on the scene, Scott Johnson of Powerline, is in the courtroom and continues to report.  In summary he writes:  "Justine’s killing is inexplicable."
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/04/at-the-noor-trial-10.php

I don't see how the larger issues find their way into this very specific trial.  This police shooting defies the narrative.  Black lives matter, cops are pigs, fry them like bacon, cops are trigger happy because they are white racist and shooting blacks, none of this fits here.  The officer is black, Somalian-American and the victim couldn't be more white, an Australian national engaged to an American.

There was no weapon on the victim, there was no threat or reason to perceive a threat.  She wasn't carrying something else that looked like a gun.  Her nightgown didn't conceal a weapon.  There was no explanation understood by anyone who came to the scene.
 He didn't jump out of the car.  There wasn't a startling sound.  There just wasn't a threat, and he pulled out a gun and shot her across

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10848
    • View Profile
Trial of the Minneapolis cop Mohammed Noor continues
« Reply #654 on: April 18, 2019, 09:10:49 AM »
"At the scene [morning after the shooting] Sergeant Barnette ordered him to take the Harrity/Noor squad car from which Noor had fired the gunshot to the carwash and have it cleaned.  He took it to Dan’s Nicollet Carwash. He saw fingerprint powder on the squad car that was not entirely removed by the carwash. He drove the car back to the fifth precinct headquarters parking lot to be returned to service."
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/04/at-the-noor-trial-12.php

What??

The 30 second buffer on the partner's body cam should have included the shooting but only 14 seconds were captured.
https://twitter.com/LouRaguse



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16534
    • View Profile
Re: Trial of the Minneapolis cop Mohammed Noor continues
« Reply #655 on: April 19, 2019, 01:09:14 PM »
"At the scene [morning after the shooting] Sergeant Barnette ordered him to take the Harrity/Noor squad car from which Noor had fired the gunshot to the carwash and have it cleaned.  He took it to Dan’s Nicollet Carwash. He saw fingerprint powder on the squad car that was not entirely removed by the carwash. He drove the car back to the fifth precinct headquarters parking lot to be returned to service."
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/04/at-the-noor-trial-12.php

What??

The 30 second buffer on the partner's body cam should have included the shooting but only 14 seconds were captured.
https://twitter.com/LouRaguse

A forensic exam of the body cam should be done. The immediate return of the squad car to service is very strange.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 46627
    • View Profile
Re: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action
« Reply #656 on: April 19, 2019, 06:59:58 PM »
Love the way you are following up on this Doug.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10848
    • View Profile
Re: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action, Noor trial
« Reply #657 on: April 23, 2019, 07:13:37 AM »
Love the way you are following up on this Doug.

My pleasure but there doesn't seem to be any evidence or issue to discuss.  The potential real issues are not in the trial.  Did Mpls negligently hire an unstable guy to be cop because they were so eager to get a black and get their first Somalian on the police force?  If so, doesn't matter; they aren't on trial.  Or is it worse, Noor is fully capable but wanted the badge and the gun for bad reasons.  Nothing of that sort is accused in the trial.

Is this the kind of story elsewhere that caused a wrongful shooting in Mpls:
"2 Florida deputies shot dead in suspected ambush"
Colorado officer killed in 'ambush-style attack'
Cops ambushed in Dallas
Cops ambushed in Ohio, and so on.  Google these stories and more.

Defense theory in the Noor trial is that both officers feared they entered an ambush.  Noor's partner also drew his weapon [although neither activated body cam until after the shooting].  They were startled by a sound and that is why he shot an unarmed women in her pajamas who approached the driver window.  Officers may or may not have invented the story of a rap on the police car.  There were no fingerprints of the victims on the vehicle.  Defense attorney suggests it could have been her knuckle or back of the hand.  So what?  Does that mean reasonable person in that situation shoots to kill?  No.  More likely fear than reason.

Noor's partner Harrity testified they saw a silhouette approach the squad car, then heard a slap or thump sound on the car that made them fear danger

Crime scene investigators said you could read a book under that alley street light illumination.  Why did they drive into a place where they felt trapped is one question and with two people sensing danger in good illumination, why did they not keep awareness of everything around them.  I question further, don't you have better 360 degree awareness on foot, but sit in the car and roll down the window is what Minneapolis police often do.

We are waiting for defendant to testify and for the jury to sort it out.  The rightful result comes down to Minnesota definitions of 3rd degree murder and manslaughter.

The officer should not have shot and the woman died because of his mistake.  I can't imagine how the defendant argues he was right to shoot based on what he saw and heard and did not make a mistake.  More believable is that he drew his weapon but did not mean to shoot.

"it will be hard overcoming the defense that Noor’s team has invoked that police can legally shoot if they have a reasonable fear that they’re in danger. Noor’s attorneys have argued that he heard a loud noise and feared an ambush. But prosecutors say there is no evidence of any threat to justify deadly force."
https://www.twincities.com/2019/04/19/mohamed-noor-trial-charges-justine-damond-shooting-minneapolis-cop/
More coverage:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/04/at-the-noor-trial-14.php
« Last Edit: April 23, 2019, 08:35:44 AM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16534
    • View Profile
Re: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action, Noor trial
« Reply #658 on: April 23, 2019, 10:17:43 PM »
The correct response if you are being ambushed in a patrol car, is to jam on the gas pedal and get off the X.



Love the way you are following up on this Doug.

My pleasure but there doesn't seem to be any evidence or issue to discuss.  The potential real issues are not in the trial.  Did Mpls negligently hire an unstable guy to be cop because they were so eager to get a black and get their first Somalian on the police force?  If so, doesn't matter; they aren't on trial.  Or is it worse, Noor is fully capable but wanted the badge and the gun for bad reasons.  Nothing of that sort is accused in the trial.

Is this the kind of story elsewhere that caused a wrongful shooting in Mpls:
"2 Florida deputies shot dead in suspected ambush"
Colorado officer killed in 'ambush-style attack'
Cops ambushed in Dallas
Cops ambushed in Ohio, and so on.  Google these stories and more.

Defense theory in the Noor trial is that both officers feared they entered an ambush.  Noor's partner also drew his weapon [although neither activated body cam until after the shooting].  They were startled by a sound and that is why he shot an unarmed women in her pajamas who approached the driver window.  Officers may or may not have invented the story of a rap on the police car.  There were no fingerprints of the victims on the vehicle.  Defense attorney suggests it could have been her knuckle or back of the hand.  So what?  Does that mean reasonable person in that situation shoots to kill?  No.  More likely fear than reason.

Noor's partner Harrity testified they saw a silhouette approach the squad car, then heard a slap or thump sound on the car that made them fear danger

Crime scene investigators said you could read a book under that alley street light illumination.  Why did they drive into a place where they felt trapped is one question and with two people sensing danger in good illumination, why did they not keep awareness of everything around them.  I question further, don't you have better 360 degree awareness on foot, but sit in the car and roll down the window is what Minneapolis police often do.

We are waiting for defendant to testify and for the jury to sort it out.  The rightful result comes down to Minnesota definitions of 3rd degree murder and manslaughter.

The officer should not have shot and the woman died because of his mistake.  I can't imagine how the defendant argues he was right to shoot based on what he saw and heard and did not make a mistake.  More believable is that he drew his weapon but did not mean to shoot.

"it will be hard overcoming the defense that Noor’s team has invoked that police can legally shoot if they have a reasonable fear that they’re in danger. Noor’s attorneys have argued that he heard a loud noise and feared an ambush. But prosecutors say there is no evidence of any threat to justify deadly force."
https://www.twincities.com/2019/04/19/mohamed-noor-trial-charges-justine-damond-shooting-minneapolis-cop/
More coverage:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/04/at-the-noor-trial-14.php
« Last Edit: April 23, 2019, 10:20:03 PM by G M »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10848
    • View Profile
Re: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action, Noor trial
« Reply #659 on: April 24, 2019, 07:04:22 AM »
"The correct response if you are being ambushed in a patrol car, is to jam on the gas pedal and get off the X."

That makes sense to me.  For some reason I thought they were at the end of a dead end alley.  Looking at the property maps and re-reading the stories, that was not the case.  They could have surged forward or backward to thwart an ambush.  The driving error was the fault of the partner of Noor, who is not charged.  Had he jammed on the accelerator with weapons drawn, the accidental shooting might have been of themselves?

Had Officer Noor waited for the person approaching (woman in pajamas) to aim a weapon (she didn't have) at them, it may have been too late.  If he shoots first and gathers information later, he is guilty of at least negligent homicide.  The officers make $27/hr to risk their life and make these decisions.

There apparently was no rape or at least was no other report of it.  State crime lab failed to follow up on that.  Maybe neighbor's were having loud sex with windows open July 15 in Mpls but no report that anyone else heard it.  A rapist would not approach a squad car.  Officers were in a well lit alley, open in front of them, had no reason around them to sense danger except for the 9/11 report and a person approaching the squad car.  Either talk to the lady or step on the gas.  You don't have authority to discharge the weapon without some other information. 

From Noor's passenger seat, step on the gas wasn't an option and we have no record of conversation between them.  Harrity the partner also screwed up and is doing everything  he can in the trial to back up his partner. 

Race? Justine, white. Noor is black Somali-American, came here as a youth, had been with the department 21 months.  Harrity is white man, was 25 at the time, had been with the department 1 year.  Police chief was a white woman, was on vacation when this happened, resigned shortly after, was replaced by black man.  Mayor was white liberal woman who left for Los Angeles in the immediate aftermath of this for a scheduled campaign fundraiser.  She lost reelection.  New mayor is liberal white man.  Race played no known role in any of this.  Race only matters when the cop is white and the victim is black.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2019, 07:09:48 AM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16534
    • View Profile
Re: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action, Noor trial
« Reply #660 on: April 24, 2019, 09:15:38 AM »
Ability: Does the person ACTUALLY have the ability to inflict serious bodily injury or death upon you or a third party? Would a reasonable person believe under the circumstances the person has the ABILITY to inflict SBI/death?

Opportunity: Do they have the opportunity to inflict SBI or death? They have an axe, but you are on the top of a building, 3 stories tall.

Jeopardy: Have they actually demonstrated the intent to do harm to you or others?

If you don't have the three factors above, you lack legal justification for deadly force.


"The correct response if you are being ambushed in a patrol car, is to jam on the gas pedal and get off the X."

That makes sense to me.  For some reason I thought they were at the end of a dead end alley.  Looking at the property maps and re-reading the stories, that was not the case.  They could have surged forward or backward to thwart an ambush.  The driving error was the fault of the partner of Noor, who is not charged.  Had he jammed on the accelerator with weapons drawn, the accidental shooting might have been of themselves?

Had Officer Noor waited for the person approaching (woman in pajamas) to aim a weapon (she didn't have) at them, it may have been too late.  If he shoots first and gathers information later, he is guilty of at least negligent homicide.  The officers make $27/hr to risk their life and make these decisions.

There apparently was no rape or at least was no other report of it.  State crime lab failed to follow up on that.  Maybe neighbor's were having loud sex with windows open July 15 in Mpls but no report that anyone else heard it.  A rapist would not approach a squad car.  Officers were in a well lit alley, open in front of them, had no reason around them to sense danger except for the 9/11 report and a person approaching the squad car.  Either talk to the lady or step on the gas.  You don't have authority to discharge the weapon without some other information. 

From Noor's passenger seat, step on the gas wasn't an option and we have no record of conversation between them.  Harrity the partner also screwed up and is doing everything  he can in the trial to back up his partner. 

Race? Justine, white. Noor is black Somali-American, came here as a youth, had been with the department 21 months.  Harrity is white man, was 25 at the time, had been with the department 1 year.  Police chief was a white woman, was on vacation when this happened, resigned shortly after, was replaced by black man.  Mayor was white liberal woman who left for Los Angeles in the immediate aftermath of this for a scheduled campaign fundraiser.  She lost reelection.  New mayor is liberal white man.  Race played no known role in any of this.  Race only matters when the cop is white and the victim is black.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10848
    • View Profile
Re: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action, Noor trial
« Reply #661 on: Today at 02:14:26 PM »
Expert testimony yesterday went exactly along the lines of the GM post.

“The use of force was objectionable, unreasonable and violated police policies … and training,” said expert witness Derrick Hacker. “No reasonable officer would have perceived a threat by somebody coming up to their squad.”

“I don’t believe they were logical or rational at all,” Longo said of Noor’s actions. “This was an unprovoked, violent response.”
---------------------
Hacker, who has served as a use-of-force instructor since his days in the Marines in the early 1990s, said accounts of the noise that apparently startled the officers were “vague” and didn’t meet the threshold for using deadly force. Officers are taught to apply a “force continuum” that starts with none and escalates up to deadly force when an officer feels lives are in danger, or to stop a suspect who has committed or is committing a felony, he said.

“You need to identify the target: who it is, is it a male, is it a female?” he said. “If an officer cannot see that, then the officer is not allowed to use deadly force.”

Noor, Hacker concluded, should have known better after undergoing “use of firearms in lowlight” and “pre-ambush awareness” training during his stint at the police academy.

“Is being startled or spooked the same as fearing death or great bodily harm?” asked Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Patrick Lofton.

“No, it is not,” Hacker responded.

The officers should have taken greater steps to investigate Damond’s call, he said, making the connection between her call about a woman possibly screaming in her alley and an earlier incident involving an apparently disoriented woman who was wandering through the area.

“Would you pull your gun out?” Lofton asked regarding Damond’s call.

“No, absolutely not,” Hacker said.

Hacker argued that the officers’ decision to pull out their guns inside their SUV was “unreasonable and is unacceptable.” The matter is a point of contention with the defense.

Officers are trained to draw their guns quickly when a threat emerges, Hacker said, precluding them from needing their firearms unholstered.

“By driving around with a handgun, there’s a higher propensity for other things to happen,” he said, pointing to the possibility of an accidental discharge. “I would say, even in an active shooter call, it isn’t needed.”

Lofton asked him whether Damond “did anything wrong” by approaching the officers.

“No, Ms. Ruszczyk did nothing wrong — police are approached daily, this happens routinely,” he said, adding that he didn’t find it unusual that 911 dispatchers didn’t instruct her to stay put.

Longo said officers should know how to handle people approaching their squad cars, and not the opposite.

“That just defies logic to me that we would have to train citizens from approaching police cars,” he said.


http://www.startribune.com/use-of-force-expert-none-needed-in-encounter-with-damond/509008502/
----------------------------------

Defendant Noor is on the stand.
Snippets follow via twitter begins after prosecution expert witness.
https://twitter.com/LouRaguse
@LouRaguse  #NoorTrial #JustineDamond

The prosecution is expected to wrap up its case today (for real this time) in the Mohamed Noor trial. Their second use-of-force expert, Tim Longo, is still on the witness stand awaiting cross examination. Could Mohamed Noor testify this afternoon? It's possible.

THey went back and forth with Plunkett talking about how Harrity perceived an ambush in prior testimony so they should be able to go into it. Judge will rule further after the break.  See you later this afternoon.

Noor had begun mentioning the Dallas incident from 2006 which Judge Quaintance had already ruled that they can't go into. When jury left, Judge said, "I don't understand the relevance of ambush training"

It was pretty obvious what they were getting at with this testimony and how it would relate to the shooting of Justine Ruszczyk Damond. Before lunch Plunkett asked about them being warned of ambushes -- and the prosecution objected.

Then on counter-ambush training in patrol car, Noor said "As long as your partner is safe, you can shoot out of the squad car in any direction. The key takeaway is saving your partner's life in a safe manner."

Then Noor got choked up talking about counter ambush training relating to MPD Officer Jerry Haaf who was killed in 1992. Noor was holding back tears talking about scenario at restaurant where they learn to trust partner to protect you.

Then they spent time on Noor's counter-ambush training. Noor said, "The most important take for me was actions are better than reactions. If reacting, that means it's too late."
Plunkett: What happens?
Noor: "You die."

"You can get days off, up to termination if you talk to an officer involved at the scene or attempt to interview him," Noor testified.

Noor then talked about his officer involved shooting training where he learned how it affects perception of officers. And what he learned about officers at scene of one, Noor said they can't talk to the officer who shot.

I wonder now if the prosecution thinks the door is open to ask about the traffic stop where he appeared to point a gun at the driver's head.

Noor says when he stepped back with a loaded weapon - he got in trouble but learned from it. "that was in a safe training environment with my instructor behind me." Noor said some other cadets "shot the floor, shot the ceiling, shot the carpet" so mistakes weren't uncommon

And defense attorney Plunkett proactively had Noor talk about something the prosecution wanted to raise -- an incident when he improperly pointed a loaded gun. Noor described he unloaded the weapon in reverse - the chambered round before the magazine which chambered another round

It was "Very stressful," Noor testified. 29 weeks of classes and physical training. "Very demanding. It requires a lot of learning." Then he began talking about his firearms training.

Noor became an American citizen in 1999. His parents gained citizenship and he said that automatically applied to he and his siblings too. After going through his schooling, Noor got to part where he started Police Cadet Academy.

Noor is the oldest of 10 siblings. He was born in Somalia, fled to Kenya with his family at age 5, then to America when 7. When reached MN in 7th grade, Noor testified, "When I moved here, no one liked Somalis."

Noor's testimony has not yet reached the night of the shooting. Defense attorney Tom Plunkett has been going over Noor's life story with him, which we first heard in Opening Statements.