# Officer Mohamed Noor fatal shooting of Justine Damond



## Mike (Jul 17, 2017)

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2017/07/17/mpd-officer-shot-woman-identified/

http://kstp.com/news/mohamed-noor-o...e-diamond-fatal-minneapolis-shooting/4544324/

http://m.startribune.com/what-we-kn...er-who-fatally-shot-justine-damond/435018163/

No known motive yet.

Story does not seem to be getting much attention either.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Jul 17, 2017)

I would hope it was just a negligent discharge or something, where an overly twitchy cop blasted someone. That's probably the best case scenario imo.


----------



## Mike (Jul 17, 2017)

KnightBrolaire said:


> I would hope it was just a negligent discharge or something, where an overly twitchy cop blasted someone. That's probably the best case scenario imo.



He shot across his partner out of the car multiple times to hit a woman in her PJ's. I think negligent is out the fucking window.


----------



## Humbuck (Jul 17, 2017)

Crazy. Story is getting a lot of attention in Australia.


----------



## mongey (Jul 17, 2017)

Humbuck said:


> Crazy. Story is getting a lot of attention in Australia.


yeah I was gonna say that.

its def top of the news here today


----------



## Drew (Jul 18, 2017)

The story is getting legs here too, partly because no one seems to have any idea why it happened. The two cops had their body cams off, too, which is a violation of department policy and problematic.


----------



## narad (Jul 18, 2017)

I heard it's not against policy if they're in their vehicle? Like I'm not sure you can drive around all day with a tiny portable camera going, would need to change battery like 10 times. Maybe they have to turn it on when responding?


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jul 18, 2017)

Cars record all the time, not optional. This footage is mysteriously "not available" either.

What we have here is willful destruction of evidence. And probably on the job drug usage (reason for bad shoot).


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Jul 18, 2017)

narad said:


> I heard it's not against policy if they're in their vehicle? Like I'm not sure you can drive around all day with a tiny portable camera going, would need to change battery like 10 times. Maybe they have to turn it on when responding?


The Minneapolis Police Department’s Policy and Procedure manual says that any use of force requires the camera’s activation. If things change quickly and the officer is too busy, he or she should activate the camera “as soon as it is safe to do so,” according to the manual.
I'm really bothered by the description saying he shot her from inside the squad car. That screams negligent discharge or some other manner of fuckery.


----------



## TedEH (Jul 18, 2017)

It's unfortunate to have happened... but I'm not sure what there is to discuss about it. Seems like there's no detail out there yet.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 20, 2017)

Still no details available. It's probably bad taste to speculate, but, it is certainly safe to say that there is no fucking way that the gun accidentally slipped out of the officer's holster and into his hand, aimed at the woman, and accidentally fired several times. Also, one of few facts we know is that the woman was shot about twenty minutes before the shooting was reported. 20 minutes is an eternity for a bunch of adrenaline pumping.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 25, 2017)

Over a week now, and, although there have been some side-stories, we have virtually zero information from investigators as to what the hell happened.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Jul 25, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Still no details available. It's probably bad taste to speculate, but, it is certainly safe to say that there is no fucking way that the gun accidentally slipped out of the officer's holster and into his hand, aimed at the woman, and accidentally fired several times. Also, one of few facts we know is that the woman was shot about twenty minutes before the shooting was reported. 20 minutes is an eternity for a bunch of adrenaline pumping.


ME stated she was shot once, in the abdomen. not multiple times.


----------



## Drew (Jul 26, 2017)

KnightBrolaire said:


> ME stated she was shot once, in the abdomen. not multiple times.


Police reports say she died of a single gunshot to the abdomen, but only that the officer shot "at least once." 

Closest we have to an update is the "loud sound" the officers heard is alleged to be Damond "slapping" the back of the car before she approached. No word as to why she did so - I could see it as an attempt to get their attention before walking up tot he window so as not to startle them, but also as a hostile action. That wouldn't really justify shooting her, of course. 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/us/minneapolis-police-shooting-slap/index.html 

It's a weird story, the near-total lack of detail is weird, and the silence of the Blue Lives Matter folk is a little striking, as well.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 26, 2017)

KnightBrolaire said:


> ME stated she was shot once, in the abdomen. not multiple times.


Minneapolis police themselves had been quoted as saying there were at least two-three shots.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-...ta-policeman-had-two-years-experience/8717936


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Jul 26, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Minneapolis police themselves had been quoted as saying there were at least two-three shots.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-...ta-policeman-had-two-years-experience/8717936


so she was shot at multiple times but hit once. Hence my previous post to clarify.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 26, 2017)

Has the ME's report even been made available, though?

Also, even if she was struck once, but multiple shots were fired, how could it be accidental?

And why on Earth is there no statement from anyone involved? By now, if the prosecutor is not going to proceed in pursuing charges against Noor, there should be some explanation. This is unacceptable on so many levels.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Jul 26, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Has the ME's report even been made available, though?
> 
> Also, even if she was struck once, but multiple shots were fired, how could it be accidental?
> 
> And why on Earth is there no statement from anyone involved? By now, if the prosecutor is not going to proceed in pursuing charges against Noor, there should be some explanation. This is unacceptable on so many levels.


one of the articles in the OP mentioned the medical examiner ruling "cause of death as homicide due to single shot to the abdomen".


----------



## Drew (Jul 26, 2017)

KnightBrolaire said:


> one of the articles in the OP mentioned the medical examiner ruling "cause of death as homicide due to single shot to the abdomen".


Not to put words in bostjan's mouth or anything, but I think his bigger point was that considering the gun allegedly went off several times, it seems very unlikely that it was an accidental mis-fire. The fact that only one of those bullets hit the victim doesn't really change that; it looks like the shooter made an intentional decision to pull his trigger multiple times.


----------



## Drew (Jul 26, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Has the ME's report even been made available, though?
> 
> Also, even if she was struck once, but multiple shots were fired, how could it be accidental?
> 
> And why on Earth is there no statement from anyone involved? By now, if the prosecutor is not going to proceed in pursuing charges against Noor, there should be some explanation. This is unacceptable on so many levels.


The officer has made some sort of statement offering his condolences to the victim, but that's about it so far.


----------



## Humbuck (Jul 26, 2017)

Totally crazy case.


----------



## Hollowway (Jul 26, 2017)

I think it’s safe to say that the reason this story has no legs in the US is that the cop is brown skinned. Normally something like this comes up, and the blue lives matter people get all up in arms about how the victim brought it on themselves, etc. But he’s a Somali immigrant, and there seems to be very little “he was justified” defense coming out. Mind you, this isn’t my idea - I’ve been seeing a lot of speculation about it on the internet. But, just as the NRA didn’t defend Philando Castile’s right to carry, the blue lives matter folks are not defending Noor. You can’t help but wonder if there isn’t some racist undercurrents to these.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 27, 2017)

I've been pretty upset about both the Justine Damond and the Philando Castile incidents, as well as a few other recent brutal events that simply had no justification. The NRA did make some comments about the Philando Castile incident, but they were far too little and way too late...

The entire point of the Police Department is to protect people and keep the peace. I think a few bad apples in the major cities are really ruining the entire system at its premise.


----------



## Hollowway (Jul 28, 2017)

bostjan said:


> I've been pretty upset about both the Justine Damond and the Philando Castile incidents, as well as a few other recent brutal events that simply had no justification. The NRA did make some comments about the Philando Castile incident, but they were far too little and way too late...
> 
> The entire point of the Police Department is to protect people and keep the peace. I think a few bad apples in the major cities are really ruining the entire system at its premise.



Yeah, I know a number of police officers, and they actually do want to be good people and help. But there's no question there are some people on the force that have no business being there. The fact that there is virtually no training or qualifications to be a police officer is disturbing enough, but the culture of not letting good officers speak out against the bad ones is really bad. I think mostly what offends the general public is that there are these egregious violations of the "I feared for my life" rationale, and yet the officers rarely get fired or prosecuted. If they were found guilty, stripped of their badge, etc., then the general public would at least feel that there was some justice. 

I have no idea how it would affect the economy of the whole situation, but on the face of it, the pay-the-lawsuits-out-of-the-officer-pension-fund sounds like a good idea. As it is, the officers have zero repercussions if they are found guilty, in terms of paying the claim. The taxpayers have to. They could even make it like a doctor, where each officer has to have "malpractice" insurance. If he fucks up, his rates go up, and he may not be able to get coverage. But what other profession can screw up royally with no worries? Doctors get sued all the time for TRYING to save a life, and failing. Not only do cops not get sued for trying and failing to stop a criminal, they don't get sued when they kill innocent people. I can pretty much guarantee that if a doc did a liver transplant on a patient that was not in the hospital for it, and the patient died, the doc would be in a world of hurt. No, "He followed his training. It's unfortunate he broke into the wrong house and shot an innocent grandpa," sort of storyline we get from police departments. 

Also long as I'm on a rant here lol I think it's interesting that cops think it has to do with the job. But in literally no other country on the planet are their anywhere near the deaths by cop as there are here. In almost every other country, the annual kill rate by cops is zero. Yet ours is in the hundreds. It's 100% an American police problem. Yet the police aren't embarrassed enough about such an overt failure to try to improve. Instead it's just more crap excuses.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 28, 2017)

I agree 100%. I just want to stress, though, that exactly zero cases of "he broke into the wrong house and shot an innocent grandpa" are acceptable. I know plenty of law enforcement officers, and probably 90% of them are good people. I think the number of bad people in powerful positions is way too high, but I also think that the fact is merely one small aspect of the much bigger problem of dysfunctional culture.


----------



## TedEH (Jul 28, 2017)

Hollowway said:


> In almost every other country, the annual kill rate by cops is zero.


Legit question: Is that really true, or is this an assumption?


----------



## HeavyMetal4Ever (Jul 28, 2017)

Police shot and killed a man in Sydney Central railway station just yesterday.

The info in this link isn't currently up to date, but certainly paints a different picture than Holloway's comment suggests:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_firearm_use_by_country


----------



## Drew (Jul 28, 2017)

TedEH said:


> Legit question: Is that really true, or is this an assumption?


It's definitely not zero, but in most developed countries it's lower. 

Why that is, of course, is open to debate; I'd be inclined to think it has a lot more to do with the fact that as either the highest or second highest gun owning country in the world per capita (I think Somalia may edge us out, but I don't remember for sure), American cops are both much more heavily armed than most police forces, and much more worried that even a simple speeding ticket could escalate into a life or death situation if the driver pulls a gun. That said, we also have a lot more racial history in this country than many others, which certainly adds a layer of complexity.


----------



## M3CHK1LLA (Jul 29, 2017)

is there a cops/law enforcement list of those killed on the job?

i think it happens a lot too...unfortunately


----------



## HeavyMetal4Ever (Jul 29, 2017)

M3CHK1LLA said:


> is there a cops/law enforcement list of those killed on the job?
> 
> i think it happens a lot too...unfortunately



A quick google search came up with this: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...ome..69i57.17727j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The numbers are truly horrific.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 29, 2017)

People in the news media are now saying it is unlikely that Noor will ever face any charges, but I don't see where there is any factual information to suggest that we know anything more than we did a week ago.

As far as police brutality in the USA, there is way too much. In terms of the danger of being a police officer in the USA, I also think there is way too much. The main difference is that you choose to be a police officer and face danger, but no one chooses to be an innocent bystander and get shot by police, or be mistaken for another suspect and shot by police, or to be shot by the police for simply pointing out the fact that you have a weapon on you legally, etc. etc.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Jul 29, 2017)

I'll play devil's advocate here and say that *generally* when a cop bothers to draw their weapon and shoot a person, there was a damn good reason. Sadly in this case and the case of philando castile that doesn't ring true. There are a fair amount of shootings in north minneapolis (which is a predominantly lower class black area) though most of them are black on black violence, not police on civilian. The majority of the police shootings here have been justified from what I've read and from what my cop friends told me. No cop wants to possibly lose their job/end up in jail over a bad split second decision. The choice to pull the trigger is often a split second decision, which I don't know how many of you have done reactive fire drills or scenario drills to mimic that split second decision making but it's not easy, even with practice. Also those numbers for deaths by cop in the USA are UNOFFICIAL numbers, meaning they weren't compiled from government or independent data gathering groups like those hired by the BLS or such for statistical analysis. As such I wouldn't rely on them as an accurate indicator of total people killed by cops.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 29, 2017)

KnightBrolaire said:


> I'll play devil's advocate here and say that *generally* when a cop bothers to draw their weapon and shoot a person, there was a damn good reason. Sadly in this case and the case of philando castile that doesn't ring true. There are a fair amount of shootings in north minneapolis (which is a predominantly lower class black area) though most of them are black on black violence, not police on civilian. The majority of the police shootings here have been justified from what I've read and from what my cop friends told me. No cop wants to possibly lose their job/end up in jail over a bad split second decision. The choice to pull the trigger is often a split second decision, which I don't know how many of you have done reactive fire drills or scenario drills to mimic that split second decision making but it's not easy, even with practice. Also those numbers for deaths by cop in the USA are UNOFFICIAL numbers, meaning they weren't compiled from government or independent data gathering groups like those hired by the BLS or such for statistical analysis. As such I wouldn't rely on them as an accurate indicator of total people killed by cops.



But that's the problem. The cop who shot Philando Castille didn't face any jail time nor was he "fired." He instead was offered a nice cushy severance package and asked to resign. And that's not at all atypical. A vast majority of police officers who kill people never face jail time nor get fired.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Jul 29, 2017)

bostjan said:


> But that's the problem. The cop who shot Philando Castille didn't face any jail time nor was he "fired." He instead was offered a nice cushy severance package and asked to resign. And that's not at all atypical. A vast majority of police officers who kill people never face jail time nor get fired.


That wasn't my point. My point was that the numbers are not reliable and after looking at some other sites, they become even more unreliable. 
From the BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30339943
"Comprehensive nationwide numbers of how many police officers kill individuals while on duty do not exist.
The FBI does record "justifiable homicides" by police officers. There were 461 such homicides in 2013, but by definition, this doesn't include the number of police charged with a crime for on-duty actions.
And *reporting these statistics to the FBI is voluntary.* In addition, *even police agencies who report their overall crime numbers are not required to submit additional data on homicides, justified or not.*
Mr Stinson's own research found 41 police officers were charged with murder or manslaughter between 2005 and 2011. In the same time period, the FBI recorded several thousand justifiable homicides." 
There's a lot of issues with the numbers here since 1. it's self reported (which essentially makes it super easy to skew data, thus throwing off all statistical models) 2. The lack of consistent data gathering makes it hard to show any real trends or account for outliers. If we go based on a purely anecdotal level, it would seem that there is an upward trend of non-justified shootings over the last few years. The biggest problem I have is the lack of hard numbers to either prove or disprove that upward trend. IF the vast majority of shootings actually are justified then that would support the reason they aren't convicted/fired, that they were correct in their use of deadly force. Like I said earlier, the problem I have is the overall lack of data, so we can't really accurately compare conviction rate/firing rate to rate of non-justified shootings. 
Yanez was fired, and 50k is not exactly a "cushy severance package". That's less than a year's wages for him based off how much he was making with overtime as a cop. https://patch.com/minnesota/saintpaul/jeronimo-yanez-be-paid-48-500-buyout A severance/separation is basically a slightly more amicable firing.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 31, 2017)

KnightBrolaire said:


> That wasn't my point. My point was that the numbers are not reliable and after looking at some other sites, they become even more unreliable.
> From the BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30339943
> "Comprehensive nationwide numbers of how many police officers kill individuals while on duty do not exist.
> The FBI does record "justifiable homicides" by police officers. There were 461 such homicides in 2013, but by definition, this doesn't include the number of police charged with a crime for on-duty actions.
> ...


Seriously?

Let's look at that last paragraph again:


> Yanez was fired, and 50k is not exactly a "cushy severance package". That's less than a year's wages for him based off how much he was making with overtime as a cop. https://patch.com/minnesota/saintpaul/jeronimo-yanez-be-paid-48-500-buyout A severance/separation is basically a slightly more amicable firing.



If $50k cash is not a cushy severance package....

Fired means no severance package. Any other job in the universe, except CEO or LEO, if you fuck up so bad someone dies, you get fired, meaning dismissed with no severance package at all.

The fact that we don't even track a statistic when it means life and death, literally, of our own people, it says right there something is wrong.


----------



## Drew (Jul 31, 2017)

KnightBrolaire said:


> I'll play devil's advocate here and say that *generally* when a cop bothers to draw their weapon and shoot a person, there was a damn good reason. Sadly in this case and the case of philando castile that doesn't ring true. There are a fair amount of shootings in north minneapolis (which is a predominantly lower class black area) though most of them are black on black violence, not police on civilian. The majority of the police shootings here have been justified from what I've read and from what my cop friends told me.* No cop wants to possibly lose their job/end up in jail over a bad split second decision. *The choice to pull the trigger is often a split second decision, which I don't know how many of you have done reactive fire drills or scenario drills to mimic that split second decision making but it's not easy, even with practice. *Also those numbers for deaths by cop in the USA are UNOFFICIAL numbers, meaning they weren't compiled from government or independent data gathering groups like those hired by the BLS or such for statistical analysis. As such I wouldn't rely on them as an accurate indicator of total people killed by cops.*


I'll play devil's advocate too, then. 

No one in ANY profession wants to lose their job over any decision they make, split second or otherwise. However, there are many professions, policing included, where people's lives are at stake, and a bad split second decision (or a bad decision over a longer time period) can result in the loss of human life. We expect the people in these positions to be exceptionally highly trained since their choices can kill, and when they choose wrong, we expect them to bear the repercussions of their decisions. So, what makes a police officer different than an 18 wheeler who swerved into another driver and killed them? Or a surgeon who, when a surgery unexpectedly goes wrong, makes the wrong choice despite extensive training and the patient dies? Or an airplane pilot who miscalculates during a mechanical failure? In all of these situations we hold the guilty parties responsible for their actions. Why should we give cops greater leeway? 

Also, the reason these are UNOFFICIAL numbers is there ARE no official numbers - there's no government body tasked with monitoring the use of force by police departments and tracking official statistics about police shooting civilians, nor is there any independent government body responsible for investigating situations where police may have wrongly used lethal force. The police report to no one, and self-police their actions.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Jul 31, 2017)

Drew said:


> I'll play devil's advocate too, then.
> 
> No one in ANY profession wants to lose their job over any decision they make, split second or otherwise. However, there are many professions, policing included, where people's lives are at stake, and a bad split second decision (or a bad decision over a longer time period) can result in the loss of human life. We expect the people in these positions to be exceptionally highly trained since their choices can kill, and when they choose wrong, we expect them to bear the repercussions of their decisions. So, what makes a police officer different than an 18 wheeler who swerved into another driver and killed them? Or a surgeon who, when a surgery unexpectedly goes wrong, makes the wrong choice despite extensive training and the patient dies? Or an airplane pilot who miscalculates during a mechanical failure? In all of these situations we hold the guilty parties responsible for their actions. Why should we give cops greater leeway?
> 
> Also, the reason these are UNOFFICIAL numbers is there ARE no official numbers - there's no government body tasked with monitoring the use of force by police departments and tracking official statistics about police shooting civilians, nor is there any independent government body responsible for investigating situations where police may have wrongly used lethal force. The police report to no one, and self-police their actions.


I addressed my issue with the statistics in my previous post. I agree that cops should have more rigorous firearms training (especially deputies in sheriff departments, they seem to consistently have the least amount of training ime). Hell I had 8 cops pointing shotguns and pistols at me a few years ago and you could see the adrenaline pumping through them enough to make their hands shake. I trust suburban and rural cops the least since they tend to deal with nasty situations less than the city cops (at least from what I've seen). I don't think cops should have greater leeway, but I think it's difficult for people to really understand what it's like to make those kind of decisions. I've done a fair amount of reactive shooting drills/scenario drills and they really underline the difficulty to make those decisions. Basically I'm all for more rigorous training/oversight, but I also understand that it's a difficult decision to decide to pull your weapon/shoot someone. I don't condone what Noor did, since there's really no good explanation for him shooting damond (same with yanez shooting castile), but I understand the mindset of being on edge all the time, with your job only making it worse if you're already a twitchy person (which I am, and is the main reason I switched to working in a hospital instead of working as a medic).


----------



## Drew (Jul 31, 2017)

KnightBrolaire said:


> ...I don't think cops should have greater leeway, but I think it's difficult for people to really understand what it's like to make those kind of decisions. I've done a fair amount of reactive shooting drills/scenario drills and they really underline the difficulty to make those decisions. Basically I'm all for more rigorous training/oversight, but I also understand that it's a difficult decision to decide to pull your weapon/shoot someone. I don't condone what Noor did, since there's really no good explanation for him shooting damond (same with yanez shooting castile), but I understand the mindset of being on edge all the time, with your job only making it worse if you're already a twitchy person (which I am, and is the main reason I switched to working in a hospital instead of working as a medic).



But, that's kind of my point - if in _literally any other profession_ if you fuck up and someone dies you expect to experience significant repercussions if it turns out your judgement was faulty or you violated some part of your training or protocol, then why should it be any different for police? 

If you're already a twitchy person, on the edge all the time... Then you shouldn't be given the authority to pull a gun and fire at any suspected provocation. Full stop. End of story.


----------



## HeavyMetal4Ever (Jul 31, 2017)

I wonder how many people would be OK with a member of their family being gunned down by a cop who panicked or acted without provocation? We all know it's a hard job. That doesn't excuse making mistakes of this magnitude. Someone died. Accountability is required.


----------



## Drew (Aug 1, 2017)

HeavyMetal4Ever said:


> I wonder how many people would be OK with a member of their family being gunned down by a cop who panicked or acted without provocation? We all know it's a hard job. That doesn't excuse making mistakes of this magnitude. Someone died. Accountability is required.


And, at present, we have zero accountability. Obama was trying to move in that direction, but Trump and Sessions reversed a lot of his review policies, and now Trump is on record encouraging police to rough up prisoners a bit. 

The fact that when a cop shoots a citizen, it's his own department and his local prosecution, most of whom have close relations with the department, who oversee the investigaiton, is a HUGE conflict of interest. This is part of why we have no good statistics on the police use of force. 

Police officers are heroes, but the reason they're heroes is because they DO risk their lives in the every day course of their jobs, and not because when they get a little nervous they shoot first and ask questions later.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 1, 2017)

A villain is simply a hero whose "means to an end" are incompatible with justice.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Aug 1, 2017)

> A villain is simply a hero whose "means to an end" are incompatible with justice.



Really?!

What "means" would Noor have needed to use for his murder of an innocent person to be compatible with justice?


----------



## TedEH (Aug 2, 2017)

^ I think you missed the point. Calling someone a hero or villain is just a semantic/perspective difference. I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth, but I think the intended message was that you can't justify a person's actions with a blanked and generalized "they're heroes so they can get away with stuff sometimes", or "they're villains, so everything they do is bad".

Or in other words, being a cop doesn't immediately make you a "hero".


----------



## bostjan (Aug 2, 2017)

CapnForsaggio said:


> Really?!
> 
> What "means" would Noor have needed to use for his murder of an innocent person to be compatible with justice?





TedEH said:


> ^ I think you missed the point. Calling someone a hero or villain is just a semantic/perspective difference. I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth, but I think the intended message was that you can't justify a person's actions with a blanked and generalized "they're heroes so they can get away with stuff sometimes", or "they're villains, so everything they do is bad".
> 
> Or in other words, being a cop doesn't immediately make you a "hero".





I would never call Noor or Yandez heroes. That was my point, actually. People say police officers are "heroes" because of the crap they have to deal with on a daily basis. I don't think that dealing with crap on a daily basis is any prerequisite for heroism, and obviously shooting an innocent person due to any amount of unrelated crap is about as close to the antithesis of heroism as I can imagine.


----------



## Drew (Aug 2, 2017)

bostjan said:


> I would never call Noor or Yandez heroes. That was my point, actually. People say police officers are "heroes" because of the crap they have to deal with on a daily basis. I don't think that dealing with crap on a daily basis is any prerequisite for heroism, and obviously shooting an innocent person due to any amount of unrelated crap is about as close to the antithesis of heroism as I can imagine.


Well, and to clarify, that was my point - the heroism would be in being startled while on duty and NOT responding by immediately opening fire, on the off chance that _your_ life might be at risk. These are people who have sworn their life to protect the public. Shooting at the first sign of uncertainty and potential risk is NOT consistent with that pledge.

In other news, this story IS getting legs - top story on the Washington Post's home page earlier today: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...s-505am:homepage/story&utm_term=.d29b41597499


----------



## bostjan (Aug 2, 2017)

Yeah, this story should have had legs two or three years ago when Jamar Clark was shot by police. Clark had been shot in the head at point blank while in police custody for resisting arrest. Reports conflict as to whether he was handcuffed or not at the time, but he was unarmed. He might have been in some trouble prior to the incident, but, I neglect to see the relevance and also disbelieve the notion that the police who shot him had checked his criminal history.

No one had been charged for shooting Jamar Clark.

The above also happened in Minneapolis.


----------



## Elwood (Aug 17, 2017)

Any more on this, not heard much in the UK.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 18, 2017)

Elwood said:


> Any more on this, not heard much in the UK.



Nothing. A few days ago, they searched Damond's home looking for drugs, bodily fluids that might show signs of drugs, and drug paraphernalia, and found nothing. When people reacted to that, the authorities said what I would paraphrase as "don't be so paranoid." It might be months before any more information comes forth, and it might well be that investigators hope people will simply forget about this during that time frame. Probably by then, at least, there will be another innocent person shot by police in Minneapolis, which will take attention off of this investigation.

Pardon my skepticism, but nothing ever comes of these shootings in the USA. Jamar Clark, Philando Castile, and 8 other unarmed people in the past 17 years (not counting anyone armed with what might be mistaken for a weapon, either) have been shot by police in Minneapolis and none of those police officers faced jail time.


----------



## Drew (Aug 18, 2017)

You can - cynically - hope it will be different with the victim white and the shooter not, but the problem is the police have little outside oversight and are responsible for investigating their own abuses, and they have little incentive NOT to protect their own.


----------



## Elwood (Aug 18, 2017)

Tough situation. It's pretty hard to hear how little is being done.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 23, 2017)

Mayor Hodges is evidently too busy with the investigation to file a budget plan, even though four days after the shooting, she was able to fly to California for a campaign financing visit.

If this investigation is taking up so much time, why has the public heard _*nothing*_ about what might have happened?


----------



## bostjan (Sep 1, 2017)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/probe-justine-damond-shooting-months-article-1.3451844

I guess that's basically it for updates, then, of which, from the authorities involved, we have gotten... zero.

If they are not pursuing indictment, then they need to offer an explanation. Who in their right mind is accepting of this. The story is simply fading away, just as predicted. It seems no one cares anymore, just like Sandra Bland and so many others... this will probably end up as another wrongful death suit settled out of court with little to no media interest.


----------



## Elwood (Sep 4, 2017)

bostjan said:


> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/probe-justine-damond-shooting-months-article-1.3451844
> 
> I guess that's basically it for updates, then, of which, from the authorities involved, we have gotten... zero.
> 
> If they are not pursuing indictment, then they need to offer an explanation. Who in their right mind is accepting of this. The story is simply fading away, just as predicted. It seems no one cares anymore, just like Sandra Bland and so many others... this will probably end up as another wrongful death suit settled out of court with little to no media interest.



It seems unbelievable - I thought at one point the Australia government was demanding answers?


----------



## HeavyMetal4Ever (Sep 4, 2017)

If it's not on the news, the general public don't care, and if the general public have forgotten then the government will be more than happy to let this slip away into oblivion.


----------



## Drew (Sep 5, 2017)

It'll probably resurface when there's some development in the case or the investigation, but it has been awfully quiet...


----------



## Humbuck (Sep 5, 2017)

I agree...it will resurface. It will take years maybe and it's a disgusting shame but you'll hear about it again.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 8, 2017)

Another non-update on the back pages of the national news - the investigators are now probing both officer's mental health records. Not a word about anything tuning up, but it would be early for that. I still think that an attorney's statement or some public facts from PD would be better late than never.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 13, 2017)

So, BCA completed their investigation and handed over the report yesterday. Today: nothing. I guess no one cares anymore.


----------



## Humbuck (Sep 14, 2017)

I'm sure her family and their lawyers care plenty.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Sep 14, 2017)

bostjan said:


> A villain is simply a hero whose "means to an end" are incompatible with justice.


You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain. That said, I'm sure the most that will happen is the cop will be put on paid leave or some crap.



bostjan said:


> I would never call Noor or Yandez heroes. That was my point, actually. People say police officers are "heroes" because of the crap they have to deal with on a daily basis. I don't think that dealing with crap on a daily basis is any prerequisite for heroism, and obviously shooting an innocent person due to any amount of unrelated crap is about as close to the antithesis of heroism as I can imagine.


This.



bostjan said:


> Mayor Hodges is evidently too busy with the investigation to file a budget plan, even though four days after the shooting, she was able to fly to California for a campaign financing visit.
> 
> If this investigation is taking up so much time, why has the public heard _*nothing*_ about what might have happened?


Mayor Hodges sounds a tad dodgy.



Elwood said:


> It seems unbelievable - I thought at one point the Australia government was demanding answers?


I must've missed something while reading through this thread, but why is Australia involved in getting answers in this tragedy?



Drew said:


> It'll probably resurface when there's some development in the case or the investigation, but it has been awfully quiet...


I highly doubt there is even much of an investigation going on. Their investigation probably consists of pretending to follow leads, pretend to read statements, etc. to pass the time until they can move onto something else.


----------



## MFB (Sep 14, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I must've missed something while reading through this thread.



Because she was Australian?


----------



## bostjan (Sep 14, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain. That said, I'm sure the most that will happen is the cop will be put on paid leave or some crap.
> ...
> I highly doubt there is even much of an investigation going on. Their investigation probably consists of pretending to follow leads, pretend to read statements, etc. to pass the time until they can move onto something else.



The cop has been on paid leave since the incident.
There is no investigation any more, because it was already completed. The investigators executed several search warrants looking for illegal substances in the victim's house, trying to tie the victim to any kind of sketchy BS they could find, and then talked to both officer's shrinks, to see if either of them were crazy. Other than that, I think the only thing we know is that there were some fingerprints collected from the back of the police car.
The investigation ended some time ago, and the BCA's report was filed on the 12th of September, 2017. So far, none of that report has made it public in any way. The only news I've seen is the family wondering why the hell the report is being sealed away in a filing cabinet while nothing is happening.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Sep 14, 2017)

MFB said:


> Because she was Australian?


Ah, okay. I didn't catch that part. My bad.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Sep 14, 2017)

bostjan said:


> The cop has been on paid leave since the incident.
> There is no investigation any more, because it was already completed. The investigators executed several search warrants looking for illegal substances in the victim's house, trying to tie the victim to any kind of sketchy BS they could find, and then talked to both officer's shrinks, to see if either of them were crazy. Other than that, I think the only thing we know is that there were some fingerprints collected from the back of the police car.
> The investigation ended some time ago, and the BCA's report was filed on the 12th of September, 2017. So far, none of that report has made it public in any way. The only news I've seen is the family wondering why the hell the report is being sealed away in a filing cabinet while nothing is happening.


FFS.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 15, 2017)

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/nati...e-damond-mohamed-noor-union-boss-minneapolis/

My take: If you don't want there to be charges, how about explaining WTF happened?!

This is abso-fucking-lutely ridiculous! Take away the fact that anyone is a cop for a second...

Person A calls person B.
Person B arrives at the alley behind person A's house.
Person A runs out of the house to meet person B.
Person B shoots person A.
Some minutes pass, and person A expires.
Person B calls for help.
Person B offers no explanations as to what has happened.

How in the shit does the above happen, then person B is *not charged with a crime?!* How about explain WTF happened or make a statement other than "Sorry?" At first, I found this unacceptable, but now I am just plain angry. I don't know how this woman's family can possibly be keeping it together.


----------



## tedtan (Sep 15, 2017)

Yeah, the way this case has been handles is a crock of shit.


----------



## bostjan (Oct 9, 2017)

The report, now almost a month old, is still being kept from the public, and there is still absolutely no movement on this.


----------



## bostjan (Oct 25, 2017)

Still not a single word of that report has been made public, and it seems that the public has forgotten about this and moved on. I guess they won.

Anyway, someone has proposed a nifty idea - "gun cameras."

The camera is installed on each officer's gun and points the same direction as the barrel. The camera is activated automatically when the gun leaves the holster. That way, any time there is a police shooting, there is some form of footage recorded of the incident. It won't be as good as a body camera, but used in conjunction with the body cameras, if the technology can be miniaturized enough, I think it's a great idea for a) a second camera angle and b) for officers who forget to turn on their body cameras.

What do you guys think? Is it too much to ask? Too cumbersome? Or is this a good idea that could easily clear the names of officers who don't follow protocol with body cameras but still make a justified shooting?


----------



## Drew (Oct 26, 2017)

I mean, the devil is in the details, but if you could make it small enough that it wouldn't change the balance of a gun and wouldn't interfere with aim, then sure.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Oct 26, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Still not a single word of that report has been made public, and it seems that the public has forgotten about this and moved on. I guess they won.
> 
> Anyway, someone has proposed a nifty idea - "gun cameras."
> 
> ...


biggest problems with that idea:
1. actually getting a miniature camera with decent resolution
2. guaranteeing that it activates (easier way would be any time the cop grips the sensor the camera turns on, like how tac flashlights for pistols work)
3. making it hard to tamper with/delete the footage (same problem as with any surveillance gear)


----------



## Drew (Oct 26, 2017)

KnightBrolaire said:


> biggest problems with that idea:
> 1. actually getting a miniature camera with decent resolution
> 2. guaranteeing that it activates (easier way would be any time the cop grips the sensor the camera turns on, like how tac flashlights for pistols work)
> 3. making it hard to tamper with/delete the footage (same problem as with any surveillance gear)


1) I'm sure we're at a point where it can be done acceptably. Google Glass and whatever Snap called their glasses seemed up to the task. 
2) excellent suggestion, actually, tying it to the pistol grip detecting pressure. 
3) This seems more a policy issue than an enforcement one. I mean, you could make it simply impossible to erase footage from the gun itself, for starters, but either impose penalties on police for firing their weapons withhout footage of the shot, or (since police groups would likely oppose this) allow prosecutors to introduce as evidence the fact that video is missing as part of the prosecution in wrongful use of force proceedings. You'd have to get the technology to the point where it had a damned near 100% success rate, but when it comes to something like firing a pistol, it's not like someone would be holding it so loosely that it wouldn't register, you know?


----------



## bostjan (Oct 26, 2017)

Yeah, the main trouble with google glass was the battery, but it the thing isn't going to need to be on very much, hopefully.

Whether implemented by grip or by unholstering, I don't think it matters too much. It's just a matter of more cost, which the taxpayers would be responsible to pay for. Maybe it'd be a cheaper option to just fire cops if they don't start using their body cameras, or cheaper yet to just keep letting the police murder people without consequences. 

It's not even that upsetting to me anymore that the police murder people, I'm desensitized to it - not because of the news, but from years of growing up in Detroit. Two of my neighbours (not some dude down the street, but my actual next door and across-the-street neighbours) were shot and killed by police, one in the 1980's and one in the 1990's. Yeah, eons ago, but do you think a person forgets stuff like that? I know most police don't shoot innocent people, but even the ones who don't stick up for the ones who do, and that's what upsets me - there's zero accountability. "This guy is autistic and doesn't communicate well, shoot him. This white woman knocked on the back of my police car because I drove past her house, shoot her. This dude just happens to be black...and that's it, shoot him." And then, when it's time for some accountability, a few weeks of paid time off and watch this video, and you're good to go back on duty, or whatever small variations of that. Shit, if I were a police officer, I couldn't work with a guy who shot an innocent person, or hell, even someone who shot a person in general, if there was no accountability.

Maybe I'm in too much of a dark place right now to make a whole lot of sense, and probably these concerns of police brutality against other people are the least of my immediate concerns, but it's just so damn stupid, and I can't just shrug it off. The thing is that now we have extra laws to help keep these issues clear and transparent, yet there is no clarity and no transparency. It's still just as messed up as it was before, in that regard.

I know plenty of cops who seem like really good people. It tears me up inside to think that if one of their coworkers shot and killed me or my family, these "good guy" cops wouldn't think twice about covering it up so their coworker wouldn't be held accountable. These are people I talk to regularly, joke around with, play cards with, etc., but I know deep in my heart that's just how it is.

Frankly, while I'm on this rant, gun cameras won't do a damn bit of good. If a crooked cop decides to shoot a dude, he'll use another gun, or cover up the camera with a finger or piece of tape or delete the video or have his captain delete the video. Just like how there was no dashcam footage when Damond was shot.

The authority in this world has one objective above all others - to retain authority. Anything..._anything_ that calls that authority into question will never ever be transparently presented by the authority whom it damages.

So yeah, I guess just forget about this thread. The discussion makes no difference, ultimately. It's just a fart in the wind.


----------



## Drew (Oct 28, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Whether implemented by grip or by unholstering, I don't think it matters too much. It's just a matter of more cost, which the taxpayers would be responsible to pay for. Maybe it'd be a cheaper option to just fire cops if they don't start using their body cameras, or cheaper yet to just keep letting the police murder people without consequences.


You know, I may be just indulging in my love of complex, fiddly solutions to complex, fiddly problems here. Maybe you're right. Maybe what we need isn't more information than we're already getting, but just better use and more accountability from the information we have. 

The fact that when a police officer is suspected of wrongful use of violence, he's investigated by his peers and supervisors at the station and prosecuted by the same prosecutors he works closely with to build cases against alleged criminals with day in and day out is a pretty massive conflict of interest. Maybe outsourcing the whole problem to an independent third party tasked solely with monitoring and upholding the lawfullness of police behavior is the better answer. Sadly, it looks like they'd be busy enough to warrant a full time team dedicated to this nationally.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Oct 28, 2017)

Drew said:


> You know, I may be just indulging in my love of complex, fiddly solutions to complex, fiddly problems here. Maybe you're right. Maybe what we need isn't more information than we're already getting, but just better use and more accountability from the information we have.
> 
> The fact that when a police officer is suspected of wrongful use of violence, he's investigated by his peers and supervisors at the station and prosecuted by the same prosecutors he works closely with to build cases against alleged criminals with day in and day out is a pretty massive conflict of interest. Maybe outsourcing the whole problem to an independent third party tasked solely with monitoring and upholding the lawfullness of police behavior is the better answer. Sadly, it looks like they'd be busy enough to warrant a full time team dedicated to this nationally.


generally speaking Internal Affairs is supposed to investigate any shooting, and they generally don't mingle with other LEO (at least from what I've been told). Based off of what I've seen in the military though, people are going to mingle no matter what rank or other bullshit is supposed to keep them separated. Having independent investigators would work if we could actually guarantee that all they do is oversight/monitoring the cops. As it stands I don't know if we can guarantee that.


----------



## Drew (Oct 28, 2017)

KnightBrolaire said:


> generally speaking Internal Affairs is supposed to investigate any shooting, and they generally don't mingle with other LEO (at least from what I've been told). Based off of what I've seen in the military though, people are going to mingle no matter what rank or other bullshit is supposed to keep them separated.


Yeah, I don't think we can really call them truly "independent." Some sort of DoJ oversight protocol would be nice, but the odds of that ever happening under Jeff Sessions are approximately nil.


----------



## bostjan (Dec 4, 2017)

We will never see justice in this case. 

The message to the civilian population is that the police can kill you without consequences. 

Freedom is bullshit.


----------



## Mike (Dec 4, 2017)

Most recent story I've been able to find related to the matter. 

http://www.fox9.com/news/137-days-l...ers-still-to-be-interviewed-in-damond-killing


----------



## bostjan (Dec 4, 2017)

So is anything happening or not? I'm guessing not. Yeah, those other cases took a long time to get to arraignment in those other cases, but a) none of them were quite as long as this, b) even if they were going to arraignment or not, they are no where near that point in the process yet, despite taking so much longer, and 
c)


> It was while considering charges in the Jamar Clark killing 18 months ago that Freeman said he would no longer take officer-involved shootings to a Grand Jury because it seldom returned indictments. The move was heralded by critics of police conduct.
> 
> But for all its flaws, a Grand Jury process allows prosecutors to subpoena witnesses, including police officers, and compel testimony under oath.
> 
> If the officers who witnessed the Damond killing decline a voluntary interview, it is still possible for Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo to compel them to give statements under a civil process known as Garrity, that protects public employees from self-incrimination.



Plus, the written reports were filed months ago now. The fact that not one shred of those has been made public might mean that they are considering charges, but it might also mean that they are not considering charges, yet they don't want the reports seeing the light of day because either they contain damaging information or they were embarrassingly lacking detail.


----------



## bostjan (Feb 13, 2018)

Not sure if anyone else is even still following this case, but news has been trickling out little by little about a grand jury hearing over whether or not charges will be filed. The hearing should be ongoing at the moment, but everything is extremely secretive.

http://www.fox9.com/news/grand-jury-process-unfolds-in-justine-damond-case


----------



## Humbuck (Feb 14, 2018)

Still following...


----------



## bostjan (Mar 20, 2018)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/us/minneapolis-police-shooting-justine-damond.html

Charges pressed against Noor are second degree manslaughter and third degree murder.


----------



## possumkiller (Mar 20, 2018)

Drew said:


> I mean, the devil is in the details, but if you could make it small enough that it wouldn't change the balance of a gun and wouldn't interfere with aim, then sure.


Mount it on the "accessory rail" on the frame in front of the trigger guard. They have combination flashlights/lasers and shit that mount there I am sure a mobile phone sized camera would be no problem to fit in. Have it permanently mounted with a switch inside the frame activated by a trigger pull. Or have it set up to be activated similar to the lanyard safety (a police sidearm with a coiled lanyard that if pulled out of the pistol activates a safety where the weapon cannot be fired [in case a person takes the weapon from the officer so it can't be used against them or anyone else]) so that as soon as the weapon is drawn from the holster it begins recording.


----------



## Drew (Mar 20, 2018)

Hey, glad to see some movement on this front. 



possumkiller said:


> Mount it on the "accessory rail" on the frame in front of the trigger guard. They have combination flashlights/lasers and shit that mount there I am sure a mobile phone sized camera would be no problem to fit in. Have it permanently mounted with a switch inside the frame activated by a trigger pull. Or have it set up to be activated similar to the lanyard safety (a police sidearm with a coiled lanyard that if pulled out of the pistol activates a safety where the weapon cannot be fired [in case a person takes the weapon from the officer so it can't be used against them or anyone else]) so that as soon as the weapon is drawn from the holster it begins recording.


Reading between the lines elsewhere, you seem to know much more about this stuff than, well, certainly me, but also probably more than a handful of our membership. I think having it begin to record as soon as it's drawn from the holster makes more sense than a trigger pull, since I have to imagine what happens in the seconds to minutes before the trigger is pulled matters just as much as that instant. Would it make more sense though to have it begin recording from the moment the safety is flipped, or do police issue weapons not generally have safeties? I'd think they would, but, well, I think rather a lot of things that seem to not be standard with police protocol, so whatever.


----------



## possumkiller (Mar 20, 2018)

That is actually a good idea too. Either way I don't see it being used unless it's forced on them. Having it integrated inside the weapon would need to be a proprietary weapon or a very competent gunsmith able to do the modifications in each department. Police agencies are able to order the weapons that they want. There are a lot of different sidearms in use by local, state, and federal agencies all over the country. You would also have the officers that have some conveniently placed "obstruction" over the lens.


----------



## Drew (Mar 20, 2018)

possumkiller said:


> That is actually a good idea too. Either way I don't see it being used unless it's forced on them. Having it integrated inside the weapon would need to be a proprietary weapon or a very competent gunsmith able to do the modifications in each department. Police agencies are able to order the weapons that they want. There are a lot of different sidearms in use by local, state, and federal agencies all over the country. You would also have the officers that have some conveniently placed "obstruction" over the lens.


I think that could be dealt with, though - if the penalty for pulling the trigger (or even taking a gun off safety) with an "obstructed" lens was high enough (i.e - not that dissimilar from a wrongful use of force conviction), then you'd see a whole heck of a lot less "obstructed lenses." 

There's a secondary benefit, too - I think most of us are in agreement that, in return for granting a law enforcement officer the ability to use lethal force, you're also granting them the obligation to be _extremely_ judicious in how they use that force. Not to shoot first and think later, but be absolutely certain that their or someone else's life is on the line before they pull the trigger. Having a guaranteed recording of the shooting is a deterrent, sure... But, if you as the officer were also worried about the outside chance of a camera malfunction/accidental obstruction/any other reason why the camera could somehow fail to record and you would face hefty consequences for pulling the trigger... Well, you'd need to be pretty damned sure that pulling the trigger was justified.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Mar 20, 2018)

I mentioned this wayyyy back in the beginning of this thread, but I think the easiest way is to have the camera act work like the grip-activated lasers/taclights. Cop grabs his pistol, bam- it starts recording everything. cop lets go of their pistol grip- then pistol stops recording.


----------



## possumkiller (Mar 20, 2018)

KnightBrolaire said:


> I mentioned this wayyyy back in the beginning of this thread, but I think the easiest way is to have the camera act work like the grip-activated lasers/taclights. Cop grabs his pistol, bam- it starts recording everything. cop lets go of their pistol grip- then pistol stops recording.


I admit I'm about ten years behind on gun tech but I remember the grip lasers being pretty hard for me to activate. Unless it could be tied in to a grip safety button like on a 1911 style pistol.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Mar 20, 2018)

possumkiller said:


> I admit I'm about ten years behind on gun tech but I remember the grip lasers being pretty hard for me to activate. Unless it could be tied in to a grip safety button like on a 1911 style pistol.


there's some really easy to use grip based lasers now. My mom actually had me put one on her 92F


----------



## vilk (Mar 23, 2018)

He's free 
Is it wrong to be hopeful that there's vigilantes waiting for him?


----------



## cwhitey2 (Mar 23, 2018)

vilk said:


> He's free
> Is it wrong to be hopeful that there's vigilantes waiting for him?


No because the system is broken. They know they are above the law...because we as a country continually allow it. It's honestly sickening at this point.


----------



## Drew (Mar 26, 2018)

vilk said:


> He's free
> Is it wrong to be hopeful that there's vigilantes waiting for him?


Out on bail, while awaiting trial? Or were charges dropped? 

If the former that's normal and a routine part of the criminal justice process, and he's entitled to every right afforded anyone else accused of a crime up until he's actually tried and found innocent or guilty. If the latter, well... From afar it seems hard to believe he's innocent but I don't know the full story.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 28, 2018)

On bail.

For me, the biggest shock of all of this is the astounding lack of facts released.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 25, 2018)

As of 25 June 2018, still no date set for trial. I think this is beyond the point where it's reasonable to ask what's taking so long. Last news was from early in May, when Noor refused to enter a plea (you know, "guilty" or "not guilty" or even "nolo contendre"), which, to me seemed kind of weird that he'd do that, and even weirder that the court would allow him to do that as if they didn't really want to hear a plea anyway.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 25, 2018)

bostjan said:


> As of 25 June 2018, still no date set for trial. I think this is beyond the point where it's reasonable to ask what's taking so long. Last news was from early in May, when Noor refused to enter a plea (you know, "guilty" or "not guilty" or even "nolo contendre"), which, to me seemed kind of weird that he'd do that, and even weirder that the court would allow him to do that as if they didn't really want to hear a plea anyway.



The arrest warrant was only issued on March 20th. 

Our system is very, very slow. They have up to 275 days till the trial, and that time can be extended for a number of reasons. 

It took almost a year from the time of the incident to the conclusion of the criminal trial in the Philando Castile case.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 25, 2018)

It's been over 11 months since the incident, in this case. 

The Yanez trial concluded about 11 months after the incident with Castile. In the case with Damond's shooting by Noor, the trial hasn't even started. Also, in this case, the public has not heard a word about what happened.

Both are sad cases, but, for a lot of people, this case represents how everything that was supposed to happen to make sure there wasn't another Philando Castile, simply didn't happen, and cops continued shooting people without any proper reason to do so. "He told me he had a CCW permit," or "He was running away," or "We heard a noise and it was dark" are just dumb-as-hell reasons to shoot a person. Without directing my frustration directly at Noor, or Yanez, or any of these police officers in particular, it is evident that we live in a system where it is okay to shoot an unarmed civilian during a routine traffic stop or during a wellness check, or pretty much any time, for any reason whatever, and the case will not be properly prosecuted by the courts.

If Noor was not in a police uniform and had done exactly the same thing, he would have been held in custody without bail, and probably convicted by now. If we wish to say that we need to hold the police at a higher standard, so the court needs more time in order for the prosecutor to investigate, let's be clear that the investigation by BCS concluded in September of 2017.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 25, 2018)

Double post again.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 25, 2018)

I agree that if Noor wasn't a cop and/or Damond wasn't a white lady, this would have concluded significantly faster.

That said, it seems that Noor isn't cooperating, which slows things down considerably in our system. By "not cooperating" I mean he's not talking. At all. To anyone. Hence why there's no plea yet.

All I'm saying it's not at the point where I think anything nefarious on the part of the state is taking place. At least none more than the usual cop killing an unarmed civilian. It's Noor's right to a speedy trial, if the defense feels that pushing that back is in the client's best interest, they'll do it.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 25, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> At least none more than the usual cop killing an unarmed civilian.


Agreed. I guess that's what's so upsetting about these cases, for me. It's this "ho hum, another cop shot another unarmed civilian" mentality.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 25, 2018)

bostjan said:


> Agreed. I guess that's what's so upsetting about these cases, for me. It's this "ho hum, another cop shot another unarmed civilian" mentality.



It's right up there with school shootings and mass shootings. Not to mention accidental shootings, especially of the young kids finding thier parents guns.


----------



## Drew (Jul 3, 2018)

bostjan said:


> Both are sad cases, but, for a lot of people, this case represents how everything that was supposed to happen to make sure there wasn't another Philando Castile, simply didn't happen, and cops continued shooting people without any proper reason to do so. "He told me he had a CCW permit," or "He was running away," or "We heard a noise and it was dark" are just dumb-as-hell reasons to shoot a person. Without directing my frustration directly at Noor, or Yanez, or any of these police officers in particular, it is evident that we live in a system where it is okay to shoot an unarmed civilian during a routine traffic stop or during a wellness check, or pretty much any time, for any reason whatever, and the case will not be properly prosecuted by the courts.


This is kind of my issue in a nutshell. 

There's this belief, one that I think is broadly justified, that cops are heroes because they lay their life on the line to preserve the peace every time they go out on patrol, and every day they're out there could very easily be their last. This is why we give them lethal power. But, a strong corollary to this is that with that power comes great responsibility, and the reason what they do is heroic is because they're NOT supposed to use it at the slightest hint of a threat. If you shoot because "it was dark and I heard a noise," you're not risking your life to protect citizens, you're risking their life to protect your own. You're not a hero, you're a coward with a gun. 

Again, I do believe that the majority of cops deserve their reputation for heroism, but every single time one of them guns down an unarmed civilian or a civilian where they have no clue if they're armed or not, they're damaging the reputation of their brothers in blue.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 5, 2018)

Drew said:


> Again, I do believe that the majority of cops deserve their reputation for heroism, but every single time one of them guns down an unarmed civilian or a civilian where they have no clue if they're armed or not, they're damaging the reputation of their brothers in blue.


Absolutely.

Furthermore, once you throw a handful of cops into the mix of everyday life who are going to shoot at every noise they hear, then it becomes a risk to my life every day, and if they are going to come to people's houses and shoot them, then it's a risk to my life whether I leave the house or not. 

A hero is a person with power that they use to help others. A villain is the same, only the power is used to do harm. There's not much of a line between real life heroes and villains, as often times, you need to harm someone in order to help someone else. When the person being harmed by the hero is out to harm someone else, and the person being protected is not a threat to anyone, we see things clearly, and I understand that real life is not generally this way.

I don't disagree that cops in general are doing an extremely dangerous job, but the cops who shoot civilians who pose no threat to them, nor to the general public at large, are villains, pure and simple. Those people should not be allowed to continue to wield such power.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 24, 2018)

https://bringmethenews.com/minnesot...-200m-damages-from-police-city-over-her-death

The family is trying a civil suit, since the criminal suit seems to have stalled for no explicable reason.

To recap:
Damond called 911. Noor and Hannity responded to the call. Damond was shot to death. Neither body camera videos nor the dashcam video were retrieved of the incident. Hannity made a statement claiming that Damond startled the officers and that Noor shot her. Noor has, to date, said absolutely nothing. Noor was arraigned on charges of murder and refused to enter a plea; in an unprecedented move by the courts, he was released on bail with no further motions filed in court to date. Now Damond's family is making a civil suit against Noor, Hannity, the chief of police, and the city.

I've looked high and low, and I've been unable to find any instances in the USA where a defendant refused to plea on a murder charge and was simply let go indefinitely. I mean, that's honestly completely insane. The fact that no one has taken to the streets over this is shocking to me. I guess people are just hopeful that somehow none of this matters.  The cops can do whatever they want, as long as they simply don't talk about it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jul 24, 2018)

bostjan said:


> https://bringmethenews.com/minnesot...-200m-damages-from-police-city-over-her-death
> 
> The family is trying a civil suit, since the criminal suit seems to have stalled for no explicable reason.
> 
> ...



My understanding is that Noor's attorneys have indicated that he will be pleading "not guilty", he just hasn't stated it himself and the court process is moving along.

http://m.startribune.com/minneapoli...n-shooting-death-of-justine-damond/480845391/

The defendant doesn't have to enter a plea for the trial to continue. The judge can enter a de facto "not guilty".

There is precedent for defendants in murder trials being released on bail: https://www.google.com/amp/amp.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article177321211.html

That one linked was for murder in the first degree. Noor is presently being charged with murder in the third degree, as well as manslaughter in the second degree.

I agree that this is proceeding very slowly.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 25, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> My understanding is that Noor's attorneys have indicated that he will be pleading "not guilty", he just hasn't stated it himself and the court process is moving along.
> 
> http://m.startribune.com/minneapoli...n-shooting-death-of-justine-damond/480845391/
> 
> ...



If Joe Schmo went to some stranger's house at night and opened fire on the lady who lived at the house and slew her, and his buddy gave a statement that the lady spooked him and he had a hair trigger, and Schmo himself refused to cooperate with the investigation and only remained silent during questioning and also during arraignment, what are the odds that Joe Schmo would be released on bail with no trial date set and no court motions set, if Joe Schmo was not a law enforcement officer. My bet is <0.000001% chance.

So, in this case with Noor, I see what you are saying, but I think it's an entirely apples-and-oranges comparison:

1. The first article you posted said that things were progressing. That article was from April. That's the last time anything was in motion in the criminal case. There is currently no date scheduled for trial. The unprecedented part of this is that they held an arraignment, mentioned in the article you posted, but the arraignment lasted less than five minutes and Noor was released with no date scheduled to appear back in court. I'd love to see another case where that has happened.

2. The second link you posted is about a murderer released on bond awaiting a scheduled trial. I understand that that sort of thing is unremarkable. What is remarkable in Noor's case is that the court is _not_ proceeding through the legal process. He wasn't released on bail until a trial scheduled for xxx date. He was arraigned and released. He was already out on bail prior to that, so the arraignment was just so that they could say he was arraigned/charged. In 99,999 cases out of 100,000, the next step would be to have a trial, but in Noor's case, the next step is to wait and hope people all just forget about it.

3. This new civil case, in which the court is delaying until the criminal case is heard is also unremarkable. Except, in this example, the family is pursuing a civil case in order to get the criminal case dislodged from endless limbo. It's a gambit for the court. They could continue with the Catch-22-type logic of "the family want to know what happened, so they are filing a civil case; no civil case until after the criminal case; no criminal case until we know what happened," but I think the officials involved all realize how stupid that's going to look moving forward. The other option is to finally get the criminal case underway, which, after all, is basically what the family has told the media is the point of all of this.

4. The entire murder in the third degree charge, IMO, is maybe appropriate, maybe not. If prosecutors truly know nothing about what the hell happened, it makes no sense for them to stop there. They could change the charges at a future date, but it's already been over a year since the shooting, as well as several months since the books on the investigation were officially closed. Again, in pretty much any other case, once the investigation is closed, charges are filed and a trial is scheduled. In this case, it took almost six months between the investigation ending and charges being filed, and it looks like it will be at least three months between charges filed and a trial scheduled. I'm not saying a trial "held," so I don't see this as being at all typical of the court system for a non-LEO defendant. Back to Joe Schmo, on average, if he shot somebody, and the police closed their investigation in October, believing that Schmo was the shooter, Schmo would be held, most likely without bail, for a couple of days, arraigned, then held in custody for about a month (with a tentative trial date scheduled) or two while the prosecutor get their case files together. The trial date would likely be postponed another two months, on average, due to overbooking of the court system, but, in six months since the closing of the investigation, you'd have a trial, most likely.


----------



## Humbuck (Jul 26, 2018)

Crazy. I'm never going to stop following this.


----------



## bostjan (May 10, 2019)

By the way, Noor was convicted of third degree murder last week.

One factoid that came out of Noor's testimony (the only time he spoke about the incident) was that he knew that it was a woman waving at them before he opened fire. He claimed he thought she was ambushing the two armed officers in their police car by waving her right arm at them and calling for help while approaching.

Third degree because they couldn't establish a motive, not because the defense made any sense to anyone in the courtroom.

Sentancing is upcoming.

I guess the lesson for all you foreigners visiting the USA is "don't wave at the police."


----------



## Humbuck (May 10, 2019)

Thanks for that update! I stated way back in this thread that this particular case wasn't just going to go away with no repercussions.


----------



## possumkiller (May 11, 2019)

He went to a Jesuit shcool...


----------



## Humbuck (May 11, 2019)

Which means?


----------



## possumkiller (May 11, 2019)

Humbuck said:


> Which means?


I'm not going to explain it. Just look it up for yourself and open your mind.

You'll see. It's what they want you to think. You'll all see.


----------



## Adieu (May 11, 2019)

Something's gone seriously wrong with law enforcement in America

What we need is a Canada-style policy change that hammers it home that a cop's job is to be the LOWEST priority life in any encounter. They signed up to get paid to take risks in place of the general public...not shoot at the general public.

Blue Lives Matter _LEAST OF ALL. _It's literally in the freaking job description.


----------



## Demiurge (May 11, 2019)

The value of no one's life should be considered reduced in the function of society, so I wouldn't frame it that way. We need to appeal to professionalism. There are some professions where fucking up has terrible consequences and law enforcement is obviously one of them. I don't understand the whole circling-the-wagons that happens every time a shop shoots a guy. People aren't slapping caduceus stickers on their minivans when doctors misdiagnose or amputate wrong limbs.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 11, 2019)

Demiurge said:


> The value of no one's life should be considered reduced in the function of society, so I wouldn't frame it that way. We need to appeal to professionalism. There are some professions where fucking up has terrible consequences and law enforcement is obviously one of them. I don't understand the whole circling-the-wagons that happens every time a shop shoots a guy. People aren't slapping caduceus stickers on their minivans when doctors misdiagnose or amputate wrong limbs.



It's pretty easy to understand. 

In this country a not insignificant part of the population feels that another part of the population is always "the bad guy", and instead of considering the alternative, will double down and declare "the good guys" as infallible heroes, and not real people who can be deeply flawed.


----------



## Adieu (May 11, 2019)

Demiurge said:


> The value of no one's life should be considered reduced in the function of society, so I wouldn't frame it that way. We need to appeal to professionalism. There are some professions where fucking up has terrible consequences and law enforcement is obviously one of them. I don't understand the whole circling-the-wagons that happens every time a shop shoots a guy. People aren't slapping caduceus stickers on their minivans when doctors misdiagnose or amputate wrong limbs.



Because they're terrified that we'll eventually come to the same conclusion as many other countries, namely that police do NOT have the right to defend just themselves with lethal force. Period.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (May 11, 2019)

Adieu said:


> Something's gone seriously wrong with law enforcement in America
> 
> What we need is a Canada-style policy change that hammers it home that a cop's job is to be the LOWEST priority life in any encounter. They signed up to get paid to take risks in place of the general public...not shoot at the general public.
> 
> Blue Lives Matter _LEAST OF ALL. _It's literally in the freaking job description.


Epic troll, dude.


----------



## Adieu (May 11, 2019)

Not at all.

I just think that police get paid by the taxpayer to be expendable, and signed up with the perfect understanding that they get to eat in exchange for treasuring our lives far above their own.

Civillians are inherently more valuable than they are. THAT is their job.


Else what's with all this hypocritical hero bluster???


----------



## MetalHex (May 11, 2019)

Adieu said:


> Something's gone seriously wrong with law enforcement in America
> 
> What we need is a Canada-style policy change that hammers it home that a cop's job is to be the LOWEST priority life in any encounter. They signed up to get paid to take risks in place of the general public...not shoot at the general public.
> 
> Blue Lives Matter _LEAST OF ALL. _It's literally in the freaking job description.


What does it say in the job description? Just curious


----------



## budda (May 11, 2019)

Canadian police are not exactly clear of being shitty, but go off.


----------



## Adieu (May 12, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> What does it say in the job description? Just curious



Usually "protect and serve" or "serve and protect", if the generic mottos on car doors and the usual shield symbolism are to be believed

Presumably, it's referring to the taxpaying public...



budda said:


> Canadian police are not exactly clear of being shitty, but go off.



Ok yeah, maybe... my primary source of information actually WAS a crappy tv show come to think of it

Fine, they can eventually go take cues from idealized fictional Canadian police then, although for now emulating the regular real kind would already be a half-decent start


----------



## MetalHex (May 12, 2019)

Adieu said:


> Presumably, it's referring to the taxpaying public..



Presumably is appropriate, because it might actually mean "protect and serve" ......(the law. Not necessarily the people)


----------



## Adieu (May 12, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> Presumably is appropriate, because it might actually mean "protect and serve.....(the law)"



Uhm yeah, that doesn't really work out

They'd have to spend their days executing judges, members of congress, and the occasional chief executive if they actually wanted to protect _The Law


..._or members of the voting public, but only in crazy referendum states like California.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 15, 2021)

https://abc17news.com/news/national...p-mohamed-noors-3rd-degree-murder-conviction/

So... Noor's 3rd degree murder conviction was overturned. He may face 2nd degree manslaughter instead.

For clarity's sake:

Third Degree Murder in MN is defined as: "a person causing the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and without regard for human life, but without intent to cause the death of any person"

Noor has refused to speak about the incident. He never spoke with IA investigators, he didn't speak to the press, and, at his trial, he did not speak about the incident itself at all. He's made no elocution, and never apologized to the family for taking the woman's life.


----------



## Humbuck (Sep 15, 2021)

Fwiw, the article says he did apologize to the victim's family.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 16, 2021)

Humbuck said:


> Fwiw, the article says he did apologize to the victim's family.


I stand corrected.


Mohammed Noor said:


> I have lived with this, and I’ll continue to live with this. I caused this tragedy, and it is my burden.
> I wish though that I could relieve that burden others feel from the loss that I caused. I cannot and that
> is a troubling reality for me. I will think about Miss Ruszczyk and her family forever. The only thing I
> can do is try to live my life in a good way going forward. Regardless of the sentence in this case I owe
> ...


----------



## possumkiller (Sep 19, 2021)

I always wondered how it worked with non-white cops. Do they get the same protections from police unions as white cops?


----------

