Curious questions. Yes, people are innocent until proven guilty. Yet in police shootings, how many in society are predisposed to side with either the officer shooter, or with the perp/shootee, depending on their own prejudice? How many will quickly blame one side and give a pass to the other side? It goes both ways. Such are often guilty of confirmation bias in that they accept only data that supports their desired outcome and ignore/deny contrary data.

If we assume the officer here is innocent until proven guilty, does that mean we should assume the now dead lady was guilty of some provocation that merited her demise, unless and until we can prove otherwise?

As to the position that we can trust justice to prevail here, I am reminded of a quip from my prosecuting atty son-in-law "justice is a process, not necessarily an end result". I guess I don't have much confidence in unbiased truth to be the winner in this one. Too many have something to gain or lose, politically and financially.

quote:

Originally posted by 9mmepiphany:

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

This. And what the prosecutors can't fit through the front door can easily be slipped in the back door. The interview and evidence will be used by the federal authorities in a civil rights action and the information gleaned from the garrity interview will be used criminally.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
Curious questions.

If we assume the officer here is innocent until proven guilty, does that mean we should assume the now dead lady was guilty of some provocation that merited her demise, unless and until we can prove otherwise?

Assuming one does not presume the other. Both parties can be guilty and both can be innocent...depending on how you define guilt and innocence.

BTW: the concept of "Innocent, until proven guilty" only applies in court

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
Curious questions. Yes, people are innocent until proven guilty. Yet in police shootings, how many in society are predisposed to side with either the officer shooter, or with the perp/shootee, depending on their own prejudice? How many will quickly blame one side and give a pass to the other side? It goes both ways. Such are often guilty of confirmation bias in that they accept only data that supports their desired outcome and ignore/deny contrary data.

If we assume the officer here is innocent until proven guilty, does that mean we should assume the now dead lady was guilty of some provocation that merited her demise, unless and until we can prove otherwise?

As to the position that we can trust justice to prevail here, I am reminded of a quip from my prosecuting atty son-in-law "justice is a process, not necessarily an end result". I guess I don't have much confidence in unbiased truth to be the winner in this one. Too many have something to gain or lose, politically and financially.

EXACTLY the opposite.

EXACTLY,

We have seen (or at least I have), how social media, and then in turn, the supposed "real media" has crucified people based upon assumptions, bullshit, lies, half truths, conjecture, and rumors.

I want to wait for factual information to come out.

That is it. No other motive. Simply facts. I am not willing to burn down a city based upon internet bullshit.

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.

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.

Why hasn't he had to answer questions yet?

1.You have the right to remain silent.
2.Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
3.You have the right to an attorney.
4.If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.

I don't think anything I have read so far has referred to Mr Noor as a Somali/American but rather a Somali immigrant. I wonder if he's a citizen? Minneapolis is a sanctuary city and the Libs were estactic that they could announce the first Somali police officer.
It wouldn't surprise me.

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:
I don't think anything I have read so far has referred to Mr Noor as a Somali/American but rather a Somali immigrant. I wonder if he's a citizen? Minneapolis is a sanctuary city and the Libs were estactic that they could announce the first Somali police officer.
It wouldn't surprise me.

I am still waiting (and watching for) anything about this officer's training. The mayor wanted demanded a Somali officer.

quote:

Originally posted by gw3971:

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.

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.

Why hasn't he had to answer questions yet?

1.You have the right to remain silent.
2.Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
3.You have the right to an attorney.
4.If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.

Agreed.

Horrible double standard IMO. Can't think of any situation where I would get to chill out at the house for several days after shooting someone under questionable circumstances.

I guess cops get extra time to get their story straight. The phrase 'some are more equal then others' comes to mind.

------------------------------------------

quote:

Sig209
Agreed.

Horrible double standard IMO. Can't think of any situation where I would get to chill out at the house for several days after shooting someone under questionable circumstances.

I guess cops get extra time to get their story straight. The phrase 'some are more equal then others' comes to mind.

I've not arrested someone (several someones) that I KNEW were guilty and let them "chill out at the house for several days after"
so that I could complete an investigation to get the needed Probable Cause before going and handcuffing them......

I once sat in on another homicide where the lead detective assured the guilty party that he would not be arrested that day regardless of whatever they talked about. The guy confessed during that interview. And the guy walked. Because the lead detective promised him. We went and got him the next morning.

It's not because the shooter was a cop....they are working on it...be patient.

Human memory is very imperfect and studies and other research have made it clear that people who have been through a highly stressful event need time to process the event to remember it as fully and accurately as possible. The people who study such things recommend that officers involved in shootings not be required to give statements until they have been through at least a couple of sleep cycles. The purpose is indeed to permit them to get their accounts “straight” because that’s exactly what’s wanted: a straight, clear and accurate report as best as the individual can give.

The problem of incomplete and misremembered accounts is that they are used in civil litigation and even criminal prosecutions to discredit what the officer (or other witnesses) say later: “Oh sure, now you say that. Why didn’t you tell us that earlier?” The individuals themselves are also of course aware of such things. “Dam’! I just remembered xxx, but if I mention it now, it will look like I made it up after the fact.”

All this is so well established these days that many law enforcement agencies have formal policies that govern the process. It’s also why attorneys and others who specialize in self-defense issues strongly recommend that non-LEOs who are involved in defensive incidents with weapons give only minimal statements to the police until they can talk to a lawyer or at least have time to get the incident “straight” in their own minds.

Yes, everyone wants to know everything immediately, but who benefits from that in the short (or long) run? The news media for one, and the lynch mobs for the other—both of whom we claim to distrust and hate—until we don’t.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:

quote:

Sig209
Agreed.

Horrible double standard IMO. Can't think of any situation where I would get to chill out at the house for several days after shooting someone under questionable circumstances.

I guess cops get extra time to get their story straight. The phrase 'some are more equal then others' comes to mind.

I've not arrested someone (several someones) that I KNEW were guilty and let them "chill out at the house for several days after"
so that I could complete an investigation to get the needed Probable Cause before going and handcuffing them......

I once sat in on another homicide where the lead detective assured the guilty party that he would not be arrested that day regardless of whatever they talked about. The guy confessed during that interview. And the guy walked. Because the lead detective promised him. We went and got him the next morning.

It's not because the shooter was a cop....they are working on it...be patient.

Fair enough. But answer me this.

In all the cases you mentioned- the 'suspect' was taken into custody (even arrested as you mentioned) and questioned. Spoken with, questioned, detained, interrogated, initial statement, booked, etc whatever the technical term is.

Has any of that happened from Mr. Noor? Maybe it has. But it seems to me - he shot someone under highly questionable circumstances and WALKED and hasn't returned. No statement whatsoever.

And I know cops absolutely love to 'question' suspects ASAP because every utterance assists in the eventual prosecution. I have a family member (beat cop) who loved to sit a suspect in the back of his patrol car with the door open and let the guy ramble, talk, etc. He would note everything the guy said... Not Mirandized? Admissible (at least it was then apparently...).

Again - in all the situations you mention - the conversations and fact-finding with the perps in person had at least commenced.

ETA: 'Officer Noor has declined to be interviewed by BCA agents at this time. Officer Noor's attorney did not provide clarification on when, if ever, an interview would be possible,' the BCA said in a press release on it's website on Tuesday night (Wednesday morning in Australia).

They are being given plenty of time to work on the 'he heard fireworks and thought it was a gunshot' angle.

Double Standard.

---------------------------------------------------

Questions for our LEOs:

1. Is it odd that the Minn. officers were driving in the alley with their lights off in response to the 911 assault telephone call?
2. Do many departments have policies permitting unholstering a weapon while seated in a moving squad car (noted: there is no indication that this occurred...just curious)

Thank you, and stay safe. Steve

quote:

Originally posted by KevinCW:....

We have seen (or at least I have), how social media, and then in turn, the supposed "real media" has crucified people based upon assumptions, bullshit, lies, half truths, conjecture, and rumors.

I want to wait for factual information to come out.

That is it. No other motive. Simply facts...

And given the circumstances here, I have little confidence we will get enough documentable facts to eliminate all the gray.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig209:
Fair enough. But answer me this.

In all the cases you mentioned- the 'suspect' was taken into custody (even arrested as you mentioned) and questioned. Spoken with, questioned, detained, interrogated, initial statement, booked, etc whatever the technical term is.

Has any of that happened from Mr. Noor? Maybe it has. But it seems to me - he shot someone under highly questionable circumstances and WALKED and hasn't returned. No statement whatsoever.

And I know cops absolutely love to 'question' suspects ASAP because every utterance assists in the eventual prosecution. I have a family member (beat cop) who loved to sit a suspect in the back of his patrol car with the door open and let the guy ramble, talk, etc. He would note everything the guy said... Not Mirandized? Admissible (at least it was then apparently...).

Again - in all the situations you mention - the conversations and fact-finding with the perps in person had at least commenced.

ETA: 'Officer Noor has declined to be interviewed by BCA agents at this time. Officer Noor's attorney did not provide clarification on when, if ever, an interview would be possible,' the BCA said in a press release on it's website on Tuesday night (Wednesday morning in Australia).

They are being given plenty of time to work on the 'he heard fireworks and thought it was a gunshot' angle.

Double Standard.

---------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure I'm getting what you are saying. I personally know of and have seen many cases where the police picked up a suspect and he immediately stated he wanted a lawyer and refused to answer any questions. Everyone has that right, right?

Yes, sometimes the person is held in custody while the investigation is ongoing and that could happen here depending on how the investigation goes, but everyone has and can invoke the right to remain silent.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

quote:

Originally posted by Sig209:
Fair enough. But answer me this.

In all the cases you mentioned- the 'suspect' was taken into custody (even arrested as you mentioned) and questioned. Spoken with, questioned, detained, interrogated, initial statement, booked, etc whatever the technical term is.

Has any of that happened from Mr. Noor? Maybe it has. But it seems to me - he shot someone under highly questionable circumstances and WALKED and hasn't returned. No statement whatsoever.

And I know cops absolutely love to 'question' suspects ASAP because every utterance assists in the eventual prosecution. I have a family member (beat cop) who loved to sit a suspect in the back of his patrol car with the door open and let the guy ramble, talk, etc. He would note everything the guy said... Not Mirandized? Admissible (at least it was then apparently...).

Again - in all the situations you mention - the conversations and fact-finding with the perps in person had at least commenced.

ETA: 'Officer Noor has declined to be interviewed by BCA agents at this time. Officer Noor's attorney did not provide clarification on when, if ever, an interview would be possible,' the BCA said in a press release on it's website on Tuesday night (Wednesday morning in Australia).

They are being given plenty of time to work on the 'he heard fireworks and thought it was a gunshot' angle.

Double Standard.

---------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure I'm getting what you are saying. I personally know of and have seen many cases where the police picked up a suspect and he immediately stated he wanted a lawyer and refused to answer any questions. Everyone has that right, right?

Yes, sometimes the person is held in custody while the investigation is ongoing and that could happen here depending on how the investigation goes, but everyone has and can invoke the right to remain silent.

Again - I don't think you hear what I am saying.

A cop shot an unarmed female literally IN FRONT of another officer through a patrol car door. Those facts are established as far as we know.

And WALKED AWAY unquestioned / undetained/ un-charged.

You don't think that is a double standard? Again - I am not jumping AT ALL to he's guilty throw a way the key. No way.

What I AM saying is he is being treated NOTHING like a normal citizen would be treated. NOTHING. After committing a homicide. Apparently they haven't even sat the guy down in a chair for him to HAVE to invoke his rights of silence.

Blue wall of silence.

----------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by CoinRoller:
Questions for our LEOs:

1. Is it odd that the Minn. officers were driving in the alley with their lights off in response to the 911 assault telephone call?
2. Do many departments have policies permitting unholstering a weapon while seated in a moving squad car (noted: there is no indication that this occurred...just curious)

Thank you, and stay safe. Steve

It is easier to sneak up on things driving darked out. It is a normal mode of operation.

I don't know of any agency that has a policy of having an unholstered firearm in the car. Actually we regularly do training involving shooting from the seat vehicle position. I have done so on several occasions during my career while I have been responding to calls in neighborhoods where bad guys and anti-police folks live.

Speaking of double standards: How's this for some twisted logic on the lack of protests/riots?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/19/...rage-trnd/index.html

I want police officers to take down bad guys with guns. I want them to take down people who are pretending they have guns in order to get the police to take them down. I want the police to take down suspects who are running from them or otherwise resisting.

I do not want police officers taking down people with cell phones in their hands, people in the vicinity of a car backfiring, or who are otherwise law abiding citizens that pose no threat whatsoever.

When a police officer is shot by a bad guy, we get the gnashing of teeth along with the "this must stop". I wish those same people that suffer from that form of bruxism would share the same concern when innocent people are shot by the police.

Before anybody twists this into "my hate for the police", there's no hate here. Just a two way street. Innocent people should not be shot. Innocent police officers shouldn't be shot. Innocent citizens shouldn't be shot. It is a tragedy when it happens to either.

Will it ever end? No, that isn't reality. Bad guys have always existed and always will. Mistakes will always happen. People will always be killed on purpose or by accident, regardless of what we as humans try to do to stop it.

I believe some of these problems are a direct result of the fear officers were taught to have in training. Rolling into an alley with no lights? Already having your firearm unholstered and in your hand? Opening fire across your partner when startled with a noise? This officer was in fear of his life before he ever saw this woman.

Just like I don't wish to be around bad guys with guns, I also don't wish to be around scared officers with guns. Both can end with tragic results.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig209:
And WALKED AWAY unquestioned / undetained/ un-charged.

You don't think that is a double standard? Again - I am not jumping AT ALL to he's guilty throw a way the key. No way.

What I AM saying is he is being treated NOTHING like a normal citizen would be treated. NOTHING. After committing a homicide. Apparently they haven't even sat the guy down in a chair for him to HAVE to invoke his rights of silence.

Blue wall of silence.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I did not know it had been established that he was not asked any questions. I didn't see that in any of the stories. All I have seen is that he has declined to provide a statement or answer questions, which would imply that he was asked to answer questions.

Not enough information for me to reach the conclusion that he's getting preferential treatment as of yet. A private citizen would probably be in custody, but private citizens are not dispatched to investigate possible assaults in dark alleys.

Locally we had a case where a man shot his ex-wife's boyfriend in the Walmart parking lot. He was released initially:
http://www.knoxnews.com/story/...n-walmart/101033452/

He was charged and taken into custody about a month later:
http://www.knoxnews.com/story/...ed-murder/330551001/

To what benefit would a LEO decline a BCA interview (whatever that is)? If truly innocent, wouldn't one want to get the facts reported? Perhaps this is standard procedure?

But as an outsider, the delay seems suspicious.

Also, if this was a diversity hire not based on merit, I'm skeptical that we'll ever learn the truth from the department and not some version that completely excuses the officer.

Was the driving officer compelled to shoot? In his interview, did he indicate if he would have taken a shot should he have had a weapon in hand? Is it typical for the driver in this case to have or not have a weapon in hand if the passenger officer has a weapon in hand?

Whatever the truth, I feel that the victim will be wronged beyond just being shot and killed.