Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Do No Harm, Do Know Harm |
I'd be surprised if either side would let the other introduce training records. Would be interesting though... Knowing what one is talking about is widely admired but not strictly required here. Although sometimes distracting, there is often a certain entertainment value to this easy standard. -JALLEN "All I need is a WAR ON DRUGS reference and I got myself a police thread BINGO." -jljones | |||
|
Alea iacta est |
Here’s what’s interesting... If Noor is acquitted, there won’t be riots, probably no protests. If there are, they won’t make the local evening news, let alone the national news. Far different from Rodney King, Michael Brown, Sylville Smith, Trayvon Martin, more than I care to recall. The “lol” thread | |||
|
| Never miss an opportunity to be Batman!  |
Then the defense would have just admitted that he did not respond like a reasonable officer and he gets convicted. I don't think "see we have proof our client is scared idiot" would fly well with a jury.This message has been edited. Last edited by: jsbcody, | |||
|
Baroque Bloke |
“Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo said Monday he heard nothing about a thump or noise startling Mohamed Noor before the officer fired, killing 911 caller Justine Ruszczyk, and that the idea of a thump surfaced only days after the shooting. Arradondo also told prosecutors at Noor's trial there were no concerns that night about Noor and his partner, officer Matthew Harrity, driving into a potential ambush in Ruszczyk's Fulton neighborhood alley… www.mprnews.org/story/2019/04/...-hear-partners-story Serious about crackers | |||
|
| wishing we were congress |
court testimony highlighting how uncooperative the police have been in the investigation https://www.mprnews.org/story/...-noor-secret-meeting Prosecutors on Tuesday attacked the credibility of Minneapolis police Sgt. Shannon Barnette, the supervisor on the scene after officer Mohamed Noor killed 911 caller Justine Ruszczyk. She has refused to cooperate with a state investigation into the shooting. According to trial witnesses and prosecutors, Barnette deactivated her body camera multiple times during the night of the shooting, jumped to conclusions about whether Noor and his partner had been startled before Noor shot, and told another officer that Ruszczyk was " probably a drunk or a drug addict " after she was killed. Toxicology tests showed Ruszczyk did not have any alcohol or drugs in her system. On Tuesday, prosecutors grilled Barnette about inconsistencies in her statements. Hennepin County Judge Kathryn Quaintance said it appeared that the attorneys were trying to impeach Barnette. Barnette was uncooperative on the stand Tuesday and repeatedly said she couldn't remember details about the shooting. But under questioning from prosecutor Amy Sweasy, she revealed new pieces of information about the investigation. In an interview with the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension weeks after the shooting, Barnette said Noor's partner, Matthew Harrity, told her there was a woman at the driver's side window "and she had a stunned look on her face." Barnette denied she said anything to the BCA about a slap on the squad car, but admitted that the noise was likely something officers assumed happened, and she picked up on it. It was something that "stuck in my brain," she said on the stand. The testimony about an alleged thump on the squad car is important because of a key dispute in the trial. Noor's defense attorneys have argued the officer fired his weapon fearing for his safety after hearing a thump on the squad and then seeing a figure by the driver's side window raise an arm. Prosecutors, however, say that the thump was a story made up later, that no police at the scene that night talked about a thump on the squad and that Ruszczyk, who was in her pajamas as she approached the squad, could not have been considered a threat. Barnette testified that she wasn't concerned about the condition of the victim. Additionally, prosecutor Sweasy quoted from a BCA interview where Noor asked Barnette about the status of Ruszczyk. Barnette replied, "I'm not going to worry about that right now. I'm worried about you," according to the transcript Sweasy cited. Noor could be seen on Barnette's body camera video briefly. He raised his left arm, then the right arm. Prosecutors suggested that Noor was demonstrating how he shot Ruszczyk from the passenger seat, but Barnette vehemently denied talking to him about the shooting at all. She said she didn't document the conversation because it was private and that the body-camera policy at the time allowed for officers to use discretion. Throughout the testimony, Barnette casually answered "no," "I don't know," or "I don't recall" to questions about her lack of documentation and evidence-gathering, prompting the prosecution to ask her if she knew how important and high-profile the case was. Kathy Waite, now the department's deputy chief, questioned why Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension agents chose to process Noor's squad vehicle for evidence on site that night, rather than towing it to the impound lot for investigation. She told jurors the squad should not have been washed or returned to service. Waite also told the court Tuesday she did not hear anyone that night talk about a noise or a slap on the squad. Barnette was the police officer who sent Noor's squad vehicle in to be cleaned and put back into service after the BCA returned it. She said that she talked to the BCA about it three times. Questions are also being raised in the trial this week about the level of cooperation prosecutors say they received from Noor's colleague on the force after the shooting. Last year, Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman accused uncooperative Minneapolis police officers of leaving him no choice but to call a grand jury that would compel them to testify about the shooting death of Justine Ruszczyk. This week, prosecutors are revealing more about the extent of that alleged lack of cooperation. They say officers and union officials held a meeting to discuss withholding information from the criminal investigation into the July 2017 fatal police shooting. The meeting took place in the cafeteria of the Hennepin County Government Center prior to the refusal of about 20 police officers to talk to investigators, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Patrick Lofton said Monday. Quaintance warned prosecutors not to interview witnesses about the meeting, saying it's not relevant to the case. She said prosecutors can show officer bias by highlighting their refusal to testify, but not through talk of secret meetings. Defense attorney Peter Wold characterized the prosecution's stance as "continued prosecutorial misconduct," and said "the suggestion of this conspiracy is reckless." Quaintance clarified that when she characterized the officers' refusal to cooperate as a "conspiracy," she was not being sarcastic. Lofton grilled officer Ty Jindra about refusing to interview with investigators or to prepare for the trial with prosecutors. After jurors left the courtroom, Lofton argued that the fact that a grand jury was convened is important for jurors to know, especially following earlier testimony from Sgt. Jarrod Kunze, who told the court he didn't have a good reason for not filing a report after the shooting even though he sat alone in a car with Noor. "This wasn't a grand jury for an indictment; it was a grand jury to compel testimony ," Lofton said. "The grand jury was convened because officers en masse were refusing to come in." video of Sgt Shannon Barnette: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkNbb3hAcNU | |||
|
| Member |
a travesty --------------------------------------- Proverbs 27:17 - As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. | |||
|
| Member |
WTF is Barnette’s problem ? Innocent lady killed and she’s busy not answering, not cooperating, etc... Hope her career is over. MDS | |||
|
Glorious SPAM! |
So if I, as a witness, had done something like this or refused to cooperate couldn't I be charged with obstruction or something? | |||
|
| Member |
I don't know the answer to that, but I think it's pretty common for witnesses in gang shootings to claim no knowledge of the situation. The way this is playing out looks like the "Don't say anything. Just keep your mouth shut" plan espoused in the thread about shooting skills is not playing out favorably for Noor. I understand it may have been his only option if he knew he was screwed anyway. | |||
|
Member |
Her "problem" is that management is telling her to shut up, in a vain attempt to limit liability on the part of the City and to (silly as it sounds) reduce the bad PR associated with lowered recruitment/training standards which quite obviously contributed to the tragedy. In all probability; the defendant was hired in spite of recommendations of his background investigator, retained in spite of evaluations by academy personnel, and allowed to pass his field training/probationary status regardless of FTO/Field Supervisor recommendations to terminate. Now managers are telling all those involved to shut up or else...  "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken." | |||
|
| Member |
Screw management and have some honor - this retard cop shot an unarmed woman across his partner in the front seat of his car. MDS | |||
|
| Member |
Chief Barnett is probably screwed either way. Personally I would tell the truth, explain that she was told to stonewall and name those who pressured her. She would be fired asap, but with a different administration she might get her job back some day in the future, and possibly somewhere else. -c1steve | |||
|
| wishing we were congress |
https://www.mprnews.org/story/...ia-harrity-testifies Minneapolis police officer Matthew Harrity testified Thursday he heard a "thump" and a "murmur" in the alley and feared a possible ambush before his partner, officer Mohamed Noor, shot and killed 911 caller Justine Ruszczyk. Harrity is the only other person alive besides Noor who can speak to all of what happened in the alley that night in 2017. His testimony was emotional at times as he spoke of the fears police officers confront daily and the mental agony he suffered in the shooting's aftermath. The court was gripped by its own anguish as Harrity's body camera video was played, capturing Ruszczyk's last moments gasping as the officers tried to save her through CPR. The angle of the body camera, positioned so closely to Ruszczyk as she lay dying, made it excruciating to watch. At one point in the video, another officer who arrived at the scene is heard asking about suspects in the shooting. Noor replies, "It's ours." Harrity told the court that he was startled by a noise in the alley, pulled out his gun and pointed it down, then saw a figure out of the corner of his eye when Noor fired. His comments appeared to back up arguments made by Noor's attorneys, who've said Noor fired his gun that night while sitting on the squad's passenger side because he feared for his and Harrity's lives after hearing a thump and seeing a figure by the squad shortly afterward raising an arm. Prosecutors, however, say talk of a thump was a made-up story that surfaced only later, that no officers discussed hearing such a sound and that Ruszczyk, barefoot and in her pajamas that night as she approached the squad, could not have been considered a legitimate threat to the officers. Harrity testified that when they drove into the alley that night, he took the hood off his holster. He added that he didn't want to "mess with" turning on his body camera if someone was going to "jump out" at him, but said he also didn't think the possibility of a threat was high enough to require him to turn it on. He turned his camera on in the shooting's aftermath. After Noor shot, Harrity said he checked himself to see if he'd been shot, glanced peripherally at Noor and then saw the figure step back. He got out of his squad and helped her to the ground because he "didn't want her to hurt herself more." Asked at one point by prosecutor Amy Sweasy why he didn't shoot if he was startled, Harrity said because he didn't get a chance to "analyze the threat" and couldn't shoot at a shadowy figure before seeing actual target and the person's hands. Harrity said he thought of her as a threat until the shot was fired, then he saw her hands and saw she wasn't a threat. Earlier in the day, Harrity testified that he saw every call he responded to as a threat "until it isn't a threat anymore. It's kind of a scary way of thinking. It's a safety measure. I just want to be ready." Harrity had been on the Minneapolis force for a year in July 2017 when he and Noor responded to Ruszczyk's 911 call. She had reported what she thought was an assault happening behind her home in the Fulton neighborhood. Ruszczyk, he said, then approached the driver's side window of the squad and Noor fired once, hitting Ruszczyk through the open driver's side window. Under questioning from Noor attorney Peter Wold, Harrity testified that he felt a "sixth sense" that someone was on his left in the alley that night, "almost like something is crowding me on that side." Harrity ended his initial testimony to the prosecution by challenging comments made by Sgt. Shannon Barnette, the police supervisor on the scene the night Noor shot Ruszczyk. Barnette has refused to cooperate with a state investigation into the shooting. On Wednesday, Barnette testified that she had several conversations with Harrity well after the shooting spoke to him once at the scene. She also said Harrity had told her that Ruszczyk had a "stunned look" on her face. On Thursday, however, Harrity, denied he had ever spoken to Barnette about the case. Harrity also recounted his personal battles with the aftermath of the Noor shooting. He said he cried for two days afterward and would "sit and stare at a blank TV" with the sounds of gunshots in his head. The trial resumes Monday. | |||
|
| Baroque Bloke |
“A police use-of-force expert testified Wednesday that Mohamed Noor violated his police training the night he shot 911 caller Justine Ruszczyk and that "no reasonable police officer" would have perceived Ruszczyk as a threat as she approached the squad in her pajamas. Ruszczyk "did nothing wrong" that night in the alley by her home, Crystal police Lt. Derrick Hacker told the court as he testified for the prosecution. "Police are approached daily. This happens routinely." Hacker and former Charlottesville, Va., police chief Tim Longo took the stand as use-of-force witnesses for the prosecution. Both were critical of Noor's decisions that night. Longo described it as a "shoot first, ask questions later mentality." …” https://www.mprnews.org/story/...lia-expert-testifies Serious about crackers | |||
|
| wishing we were congress |
Prosecution rests. Noor takes the stand https://twitter.com/LouRaguse?...7-noor-testifies.php Mohamed Noor testified that while stopped at the end of the alley looking at the bicyclist, "Soon as the cyclist comes to a stop, I hear a loud bang on the driver's side. Soon as I hear it, my partner yells, 'Oh Jesus' while he went for his gun." "He turned to me with fear in his eyes. His gun appeared caught in his holster," Noor said. Plunkett; How did you know? Noor: I saw it, sir. "I saw a female in a pink shirt with blonde hair raise her right arm. I fired one shot. And the threat was gone." What was the significance of raising arm? Noor: "She could have had a weapon, sir." Plunkett: "Why didn't you wait?" Noor: "My partner would have been dead." Noor said he did not know that Justine was not a threat until he came around the side of the police SUV and his partner told him to holster his weapon. Why did he fire? "My intent was to stop the threat," Noor said, adding he believed his partner's life was in danger. When realized she wasn't armed? "I felt like my whole world came crashing down. Great anguish. Couldn't breathe. Slight paralysis." When he heard the "bang" himself, Noor said he didn't fear for his life. When did he? "Soon as he looked back, he yelled, 'Oh Jesus' -- I had to confirm the threat, I put my left arm on my partner's chest" and he fired. Plunkett: Why did you put your hand on his chest? Noor: "To protect him from my weapon." Noor later said he was extended all the way over the steering wheel when he shot. Noor's voice was wavering but didn't really cry. He did appear more distressed when he was asked about if he regretted becoming a cop. "If I knew this would happen, I never would have become a cop," Noor said. It was difficult to tell if tears were falling. Noor said, "I had every intention of calling the (911) caller back. We just didn't get that far." That was new info because everything we heard from Harrity was that they were done with that call and moving onto the next one Prosecutor Amy Sweasy later seized on that claim, asking why he would be surprised that the 911 caller appeared at his window if he still had that call on his mind Plunkett asked Noor why his reaction was different from his partner's reaction. "His gun was caught. He may have gotten it out afterwards. I was focused on the threat." Sweasy later asked why Harrity testified that he had no trouble unholstering his gun Plunkett asked about the body camera video that shows Noor raising hands as if possibly demonstrating how he shot. Noor said, "I don't remember, sir. From that night, everything's a blur." Sweasy later pointed out all the other details from the night he remembers, including a story about ordering a goat cheese hamburger from Red Cow. Noor had a zinger while on the stand toward Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman. Plunkett asked about Noor deciding not to voluntarily talk to the grand jury: "Mike Freeman told a group of activists he would like to charge me as a Christmas present to himself," Noor said. This conversation was captured surreptitiously on cell phone by one of the activists Noor ended his direct examination when asked by Plunkett, "Would you have shot if not concerned for your life or your partner's life?" Noor: "No, sir." On Cross examination, Sweasy was aggressive with rapid-fire questions. First, questioning his understanding of use of deadly force since he at first answered it's allowed if "concerned for safety" -- he later answered correctly with definition Sweasy made sure he repeated over and over that he knew he was shooting a person. A woman with blonde hair and a pink shirt. I suspect they find this admission important to their proving 2nd Degree murder Why did Harrity only see a silhouette? Noor answered that Harrity was looking toward Noor while trying to unholster his weapon Sweasy makes him answer: You never saw her hands? You never saw her gold cell phone? You never saw a weapon? "Yes, ma'am" he answered to each question. Sweasy then went into pretty great detail about the call to the alley, trying to show that he did a half-hearted job looking for a woman screaming. Window just cracked, air conditioning running inside. "Are you doing a service to the 911 caller by not bothering to open your window?" Sweasy asked. Noor said it was open. it was cracked. and he could hear Noor told Sweasy "I've worked with my partner long enough to know he feared for his life." Sweasy: Does "oh Jesus" automatically mean "I fear for my life?" Sweasy started to hammer on whether Noor himself perceived a threat -- not just his partner. Noor answered that the arm moving in an upward motion was a threat, coupled with his partner's reactions, enough to objectively use force. Sweasy: "Officer Harrity did not yell, 'gun, gun.' He did not say "help." Noor: No ma'am. Noor then said "I fired once. The threat took a couple steps back..." Sweasy: Did you just say "the threat" took a couple steps back? Noor: Yes. Sweasy: "The whole blonde hair, pink t-shirt and all is a threat to you?" This cross-examination will continue at 830am. During Noor's testimony, Justine Ruszczyk's fiance Don Damond sat shoulder-to-shoulder with Noor's father in the tiny, crowded courtroom | |||
|
| Member |
I think Noor is (correctly)screwed. | |||
|
Casuistic Thinker and Daoist |
Well, either he was very well coached or he's telling the truth. Those are pretty good answer to questions I didn't think he'd be able address with any kind of rationality No, Daoism isn't a religion | |||
|
Tinker Sailor Soldier Pie |
So what's your take then? That if he was legitimately in fear for his partner's or his own life that he should be acquitted, even if on the outside his actions were completely unreasonable and unjustified? Does an officer's actions only need to be justifiable through his own eyes? I should hope not. ~Alan Acta Non Verba NRA Life Member (Patron) God, Family, Guns, Country Men will fight and die to protect women... because women protect everything else. ~Andrew Klavan "Once there was only dark. If you ask me, light is winning." ~Rust Cohle | |||
|
| Freethinker |
If we’re asking a fundamental question, and not whether it was true in this incident, it’s a well-established principle confirmed by the Supreme Court that the law enforcement officer’s perceptions are what matter in use of force cases: “[The issue is] whether the officers’ action are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them … judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” “… reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) If I learned anything in my long years as an investigator, it is that it is extremely foolish to make judgments and draw conclusions from scanty information—as is true of what we know about this incident—and no matter how deliciously satisfying it may be to confirm our cherished biases. ► 6.4/93.6 “Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.” — Plato | |||
|
| Casuistic Thinker and Daoist |
That isn't for me to say, that is why they have a jury empaneled. My "take" on it is that the ADA just went from, "this is going to be a easy 2nd degree Murder win" to "I hope I can limit the damage and get some kind of Manslaughter out of this." We'll see if her second day of cross examination goes better, but the above was pretty weak His answer as to why he chose not to voluntarily talk to the Grand Jury was outstanding...we'll be hearing that one used again in other cases No, Daoism isn't a religion | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 ... 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024