quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
I just wonder if there is a training officer somewhere thinking to himself while he shakes his head, "I fucking told them so"...

Doubtful, I can't imagine a training officer covering the topic of not shooting past your partner while seated.
Guess now it will needed to be added to the training manual.
Probably should advice trainees as well, firing a gun within six inches of your partners ear is frowned upon.

An excerpt I copied from the AP news:
"One of the officers said they were startled by a loud sound right before Damond approached the vehicle."
A loud sound as in a gunshot? Loud sound as in someone dropping something?
They are also looking for a bicyclist who might have witnessed something.
Not really going to pass a judgment here because things are still too hazy. Truth may never come out.

quote:

Doubtful, I can't imagine a training officer covering the topic of not shooting past your partner while seated.

I am sure some TACTICOOL dude on YouTube has a video up. I got a solicitation from some shooting school with training on how to shoot from a vehicle. I have to admit it looked like fun, but in my opinion that kind of training for a civilian is ridiculous. Shooting through the windshield, jumping out the car etc. I can just imagine some idiot doing that on the Expressway. JMHO

Given the information available so far, one could just as easily conclude that the officer in question was cleaning his gun as he sat there and it simply went off.

StarTribune Update

Personal observation...how the fuck does the cop not have to answer any questions yet? No citizen would be afforded that right.

Minnesota BCA: Minneapolis officer heard loud noise before partner shot Justine Damond

Minneapolis police officers Matthew Harrity and Mohamed Noor eased their patrol vehicle into the darkened alley in response to a call of a possible assault Saturday night in the affluent South Side neighborhood. The squad’s lights were off and a loud noise startled Harrity as they reached an intersection.

In the next moment, Justine Damond, the woman who called 911, approached Harrity, who was in the driver’s seat.

Suddenly, for reasons still unclear, Noor fired across his partner through squad’s open window, striking Damond in the abdomen. They began CPR, but she was dead 20 minutes later.

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
I just wonder if there is a training officer somewhere thinking to himself while he shakes his head, "I fucking told them so"...

Doubtful, I can't imagine a training officer covering the topic of not shooting past your partner while seated.
Guess now it will needed to be added to the training manual.
Probably should advice trainees as well, firing a gun within six inches of your partners ear is frowned upon.

Not sure my point was missed or if you were joking...

To clarify my post, if it was the former, it is not uncommon in some agencies for a field training officer, sometimes multiple training officers, to refuse to pass a trainee because they either aren't 'getting it' or straight up have no business being released to be on their own. Admin with either shop around until they find a training officer that will pass them, or they will pass them anyway, ignoring the documentation and warnings from the trainer. I have seen it several times, and within a year in every occasion the rookie gets fired after making an ass out of the agency. One made it three years, but he was protected. In every occasion I knew the training officers that refused to pass them, and I knew they documented the situation well.

I'm starting to get a picture in my head as to what may have happened.

But I'll follow everyone else's lead at this point and wait for the "facts."

quote:

Originally posted by Ronin1069:
StarTribune Update

Personal observation...how the fuck does the cop not have to answer any questions yet? No citizen would be afforded that right.

He has the same 5th Amendment rights as any other person. He has no obligation to make a statement for the criminal investigation, and can delay the internal investigation statement until he is either threatened with termination or is terminated. And the internal statement can't be released to the public, as I recall.

A better way to phrase your aggravation may be "how the fuck does the cop not have handcuffs on his wrists yet...no citizen would be afforded that right", not to put words in your mouth...and I think that is a valid question given the last 2 or 3 years' events and the way other officers have been crucified so quickly with much less damning evidence. Not that I agree with those officers going through what they have...but it certainly raises the question.

On the other side of the training coin, "those that can, do. Those that can't, teach."

The fault could lie with insufficient training.

Just a possibility.

Now that the officer has invoked his right not to speak, we are going to get more spin and speculation.

Hopefully the BCA's report (which they may seal) is what we are going to need to see to make sense of all of this.

H&K-Guy

quote:

He has the same 5th Amendment rights as any other person. He has no obligation to make a statement for the criminal investigation, and can delay the internal investigation statement until he is either threatened with termination or is terminated. And the internal statement can't be released to the public, as I recall.

Sorry Chongo. I did not mean to come across snarky and I'm about as "pro-cop" as anyone I know. Just frustrated being local and the family not getting any info.

quote:

On the other side of the training coin, those that can, do. Those that can't, teach.

The fault could lie with insufficient training.

Just a possibility.

Or an inadequate screening process. Some departments do very little in the way of psychological screening for their applicants. There are some people that would not be suitable cops even with superb gun handling skills. As has been said before, common sense just is not that common.

quote:

Originally posted by H&K-Guy:
"those that can, do. Those that can't, teach."

How about another one: “Those who can’t do well, can’t teach well.” Or, even better: “Those who don’t know their ass from their elbow can’t do or teach”?

Your dismissal of the one thing—education—that is responsible for 99 percent of what most people know may apply to ivory tower academics, but it certainly is not true of practical fields like law enforcement. The truth is that it takes a lot of extra effort and dedication to be a law enforcement training officer while also working the street alongside trainees. In my experience field training officers are either assigned to the task (often against their will) or take it on because if they don’t, who will?

But to address your question, just how much and what sort of training should be necessary to impart the message of “Don’t shoot a woman witness in pajamas armed with nothing more than a cell phone while she’s next to your car reporting an incident”? Do you have something specific in mind?

quote:

Originally posted by Ronin1069:

quote:

He has the same 5th Amendment rights as any other person. He has no obligation to make a statement for the criminal investigation, and can delay the internal investigation statement until he is either threatened with termination or is terminated. And the internal statement can't be released to the public, as I recall.

Sorry Chongo. I did not mean to come across snarky and I'm about as "pro-cop" as anyone I know. Just frustrated being local and the family not getting any info.

I didn't take it as snarky, just explaining to all that when an officer is investigated there are 2 different types of investigations, internal and criminal. That part we all know. Usually (in serious cases) officers give a criminal investigation statement, crafted by their attorneys. Many times, that will be used by the internal investigators and no further internal interview is necessary.

Of course, the officer is not required to give a criminal interview. He is, however, required to give an internal investigation interview, with threat of termination if he refuses. Any information obtained through the internal investigation interview CAN NOT be shared or used in the criminal interview. Criminal --> Internal, yes; Internal --> Criminal, no.

So the question of why he hasn't been interviewed internally is a good one, if he hasn't. Usually in lethal force cases the lawyers want you to wait two days to give the interview. Much past that and I'd expect the department isn't going to be happy and may make their own decision. We just had an officer push his interview out (after hitting and killing a pedestrian while driving emergency traffic) past 3 days and he showed up to do a criminal interview and was told he had a warrant, so his lawyer said they were done.

However, I'm neither IA or an attorney, so I'm not an expert in all of this. I do not think that information given in an internal interview can be released to the public, as it is part of a personnel investigation. Again, I'm not an expert, and that may not be 100% correct.

UPDATE

Release from BCA

Does not answer a whole lot, but as current as there is.

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
I just wonder if there is a training officer somewhere thinking to himself while he shakes his head, "I fucking told them so"...

Doubtful, I can't imagine a training officer covering the topic of not shooting past your partner while seated.
Guess now it will needed to be added to the training manual.
Probably should advice trainees as well, firing a gun within six inches of your partners ear is frowned upon.

Not sure my point was missed or if you were joking...

To clarify my post, if it was the former, it is not uncommon in some agencies for a field training officer, sometimes multiple training officers, to refuse to pass a trainee because they either aren't 'getting it' or straight up have no business being released to be on their own. Admin with either shop around until they find a training officer that will pass them, or they will pass them anyway, ignoring the documentation and warnings from the trainer. I have seen it several times, and within a year in every occasion the rookie gets fired after making an ass out of the agency. One made it three years, but he was protected. In every occasion I knew the training officers that refused to pass them, and I knew they documented the situation well.

This. Happens everywhere and especially when you have a political need to pass the great Somali hope.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
I'm starting to get a picture in my head as to what may have happened.

But I'll follow everyone else's lead at this point and wait for the "facts."

I too have a picture in my head of likelihoods, and will wait for "facts". Problem is that at this point, many have more incentive to lie than to tell the truth. I would prob want three independent sources to say the same thing before I would accept such as "fact".

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
I'm starting to get a picture in my head as to what may have happened.

But I'll follow everyone else's lead at this point and wait for the "facts."

Please do. And when they come out if they are damning, light a torch for me. I'll be right there alongside you.

We allow "innocent until proven guilty" for all the criminals, so we need to do so in this case too.

If he is wrong, the he will get what is coming to him. But let's wait until we have ANYTHING of substance to make such a decision.

More information


MINNEAPOLIS — One of the Minneapolis police officers involved in the fatal shooting of Justine Damond said he heard a loud noise immediately before his partner shot through an open window, striking the woman in the abdomen, according to information released Tuesday by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.

After nearly three days of silence, the agency on Tuesday released the first, preliminary account of what happened Saturday night in the city’s Fulton neighborhood based on an interview with Officer Matthew Harrity.

The fatal shooting of Damond, a 40-year-old spiritual healer from Australia who was engaged to be married, has made international headlines in the days since it happened, stirring community unrest toward police and calls from family and friends for an explanation as to why Officer Mohamed Noor shot her.

The new information from the BCA does not fully answer those questions — in part because Noor refused to be interviewed by investigators — but it offers a timeline of what happened that night.

The BCA said Noor’s attorney, Thomas Plunkett, has not indicated whether the officer will give an interview. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Harrity’s attorney, Fred Bruno, confirmed he was representing the officer but did not comment further.

As her family previously reported, the BCA said it was Damond, identified by her given name of Justine Ruszczyk, who called 911 that night. Around 11:30 p.m., she reported hearing screaming in the alley, and worried there might be an assault taking place.

The responding officers had not been on the force long. Harrity had been hired a year ago; Noor two years prior. They drove through the alley with the squad lights turned off. As they reached the street, “Harrity indicated that he was startled by a loud sound near the squad. Immediately afterward Ruszczyk approached the driver’s side window of the squad. Harrity indicated that Officer Noor discharged his weapon, striking Ruszczyk through the open driver’s side window,” according to the preliminary BCA investigation.

After Noor shot Damond, the officers quickly exited the car and started performing CPR until medical responders arrived. Damond was pronounced dead at the scene.

Though it does not specify the source of the sounds Harrity heard, police radio from the incident, published by website Minnesota PoliceClips, indicates that at one point an officer heard “aerial fireworks” that sounded like shots.

Officers found Damond’s cellphone at the scene. There was no weapon.

The officers were wearing body cameras, but they did not turn them on until after the shooting, according to the BCA. Investigators say they are not aware of any video or audio of the shooting.

The investigation is still active, but the BCA account of events says the agency has briefed the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office about the preliminary findings. Once the investigation is completed, all materials will go to the county attorney to review. The Minneapolis Police Department said late Tuesday that it could not comment on the BCA report.

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull called the shooting "shocking" and "inexplicable" and said his diplomats were seeking answers from U.S. authorities.

"How can a woman out in the street in her pajamas seeking assistance be shot like that?" the prime minister said in the interview with Nine Network. "It is a shocking killing, and yes, we are demanding answers on behalf of her family."

Noor’s involvement in the shooting has stoked fear among Twin Cities Somalis, who have worked for decades to become part of the city's fabric.

"They fear this will be just another event used to create animosity toward the Somali community," said Mohamud Noor, executive director at the Confederation of Somali Community in Minnesota. He is not related to the officer.

Already, hateful posts criticizing Islam and sharia law are filling social media in response to the police shooting. Several far-right blogs featured sensational headlines that blamed the officer's ethnicity, not his training, for the deadly use of force.

Other Somali officers in the police department are "nervous," Somali activist Omar Jamal said.

"They're not talking at all," he said. "You can feel the pressure, because you know, the difference now is 'one of you guys did it.' ”

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
Of course, the officer is not required to give a criminal interview. He is, however, required to give an internal investigation interview, with threat of termination if he refuses. Any information obtained through the internal investigation interview CAN NOT be shared or used in the criminal interview. Criminal --> Internal, yes; Internal --> Criminal, no.

However, I'm neither IA or an attorney, so I'm not an expert in all of this. I do not think that information given in an internal interview can be released to the public, as it is part of a personnel investigation. Again, I'm not an expert, and that may not be 100% correct.

I am not an attorney or a former member of the rat squad either, but I do have more than a passing familiarity with the process...as a union steward and as a member of Peer Support.

An (CA) officer's rights are protected by the Peace Officer's Bill of Rights. These protections are in place because an officer can be compelled, administratively, to answer questions in violation of his 5th Amendment protections. The dance usually goes something like:
IA: We'd like you to tell use what happened
LEO: I'd like to exercise my 5th amendment rights
IA: As a superior officer, I'm ordering you to answer my questions under the threat of termination for insubordination. You answers will not be share with or used against you in a criminal investigation.

At that point the officer would need to decide the greater exposure: Termination or Incarceration. IF you believe that they won't share your testimony with the criminal investigators that's one thing. You statements can still be used to contradict statements you could make if you had to testify.

I've seen it go both ways...a lot depends on if management is looking for your head or wants to throw you under the bus

Ronin posted a link to the BCA first report (above)

Officer Harrity interviewed w BCA

Officer Noor declined to interview w BCA

In the alley, Harrity said he was startled by a loud sound. Immediately afterward Ms Ruszczyk approached the car. Officer Noor fired thru the open driver's window.

The BCA cannot compel the testimony of either officer.