Officer Found Guilty of 3rd Degree Murder in Shooting of Justine Damond

Mohamed noor justine damond shooting

Former Minneapolis police officer Mohamed Noor walks through the skyway with his attorney Thomas Plunkett, right, on the way to court for the verdict Tuesday, April 30, 2019, in Minneapolis, Minn. (David Joles/Star Tribune via AP)

In July of 2017, Justine Damond of Minneapolis dialed 911 to report a possible sexual assault near her home. Officers searched the area and when a squad car drove through an alley near Damond’s home, she approached the car’s open driver-side window.

That’s when officer Mohamed Noor, who was riding in the passenger seat, shot Damond, killing her. Both officers’ body cameras were off at the time.

Noor was subsequently charged with both second-degree manslaughter and third-degree murder. Yesterday Noor was convicted on the murder charge.

From startribune.com:

Jurors reached their verdict after about 10 hours of sequestered deliberations in a case that was closely watched nationwide and in Damond’s native Australia. They convicted Noor of third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter but acquitted him of the most serious count — second-degree murder.

Noor, 33, sat expressionless with his hands clasped in front of him as the verdict was read in court just before 5 p.m. One juror hung his head while others sat calmly.

Local activists criticized the conviction, pointing out that the St. Anthony, Minnesota police officer who shot and killed licensed concealed carrier Philando Castile was acquitted.

Johanna Morrow plays the didgeridoo during a memorial service for Justine Ruszczyk Damond at Lake Harriet in Minneapolis. (Aaron Lavinsky/Star Tribune via AP, File)

Here’s the AP’s full report on the Noor conviction:

By AMY FORLITI Associated Press

After three weeks of testimony, a jury needed little more than a day to convict a black Minneapolis police officer of murder in the fatal shooting of an unarmed white woman who had called 911 to report a possible crime, delivering a guilty verdict that immediately sparked questions about whether race played a role.

Mohamed Noor was also convicted Tuesday of manslaughter in the July 2017 death of Justine Ruszczyk Damond , a 40-year-old dual citizen of the U.S. and Australia whose death bewildered and angered people in both countries.

Noor, 33, testified that he and his partner heard a loud bang on their squad car that startled them, and that he fired “to stop the threat” after he saw a woman appear at his partner’s window raising her arm. Prosecutors questioned whether the bang happened and attacked Noor for not seeing a weapon or Damond’s hands before he fired.

It’s rare for police officers to be convicted after asserting they fired in a life-or-death situation, but some Minnesota community members said they saw it coming for Noor because he is Somali American.

“Officer Noor was going to jail no matter what because he’s a black man who shot a white woman in the state of Minnesota,” said John Thompson, an activist and friend of Philando Castile, a black man who was killed in 2016 by a Latino suburban police officer who was acquitted.

Alana Ramadan, an African American and Muslim who held a sign calling for the resignation of Hennepin County’s head prosecutor, said the African American people she’s spoken with knew Noor would be convicted.

“It’s almost like there’s no hope,” she said.

Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman dismissed the idea that race played a role in the case.

“That simply is not true,” he said. “Race has never been a factor in any of my decisions and never will be. … We look at each case based on the facts and the evidence and the law that’s in front of us. And I will stand by what we have done.”

When asked how Noor’s case was different, Freeman, who has chosen not to charge some white officers in the past, said: “The evidence showed that the officer acted unreasonably.”

Noor, a two-year veteran who testified that he shifted to policing from a career in business because he “always wanted to serve,” was acquitted of the most serious charge of intentional second-degree murder.

He faces up to 15 years on the third-degree murder conviction and nearly five years on the manslaughter conviction, although judges aren’t bound by state sentencing guidelines and can impose much lower sentences.

Noor was handcuffed and taken into custody immediately despite his attorney’s request that he be free on bond pending sentencing June 7. He showed no visible emotion and did not look back at his family, but his wife was crying.

Damond’s father, John Ruszczyk, said the jury’s decision reflected respect for the rule of law and the sanctity of life.

“Justine was killed by a police officer, an agent of the state,” he said. “We believe he was properly charged with a crime.”

Ruszczyk also bitterly criticized police, saying the family believes “the conviction was reached despite the active resistance of a number of Minneapolis police officers, including the head of the union, and either active resistance or gross incompetence” by state investigators early on.

Noor’s attorneys weren’t immediately available for comment.

Minnesota’s third-degree murder charge means causing the death of another through a dangerous act “without regard for human life but without intent to cause” death. Second-degree manslaughter is defined as creating unreasonable risk of causing death or great bodily harm to another through culpable negligence.

Noor and his partner were rolling down the alley behind Damond’s home and checking out the 911 call just before the shooting. Both men testified about a loud noise on the squad car.

But while Noor described a decision to fire based on what he felt was a threat, Harrity testified that he hadn’t finished analyzing the situation before his partner fired. When prosecutor Amy Sweasy asked Harrity whether that meant it would have been premature for him to fire, he agreed.

The death of Damond, a life coach who was engaged to be married a month after the shooting, sparked outrage in both the U.S. and Australia. It also cost Minneapolis’ police chief her job and contributed to the electoral defeat of the city’s mayor a few months later.

Neither officer had a body camera running when Damond was shot. Both switched on their cameras in time to capture the aftermath, which included their attempts to save Damond with CPR. But Noor’s bullet hit her in a key abdominal artery, and a medical examiner testified she lost so much blood so quickly that even faster medical care might not have saved her.

Prosecutors sought to raise questions about the way police and state investigators handled the aftermath. They played excerpts from body cameras worn by responding officers that revealed many officers turning them on and off at will; one officer could be heard on his camera at one point telling Noor to “keep your mouth shut until you have to say anything to anybody.” They also highlighted the lack of forensic evidence proving Damond touched the squad car.

But the case still came down to jurors’ assessment of whether Noor was justified in shooting, and they had only the officers’ testimony for a picture of the key moments. During his closing argument Monday, defense attorney Thomas Plunkett told jurors all that mattered was the “precise moment” in which Noor fired his gun and that they needed to consider whether Noor acted as a reasonable officer would act in the same circumstances. Sweasy argued the shooting was not justified.

The jury included 10 men and two women. Six of the jurors, including the two women, are people of color.

Noor is among the many Somali immigrants who settled in Minnesota after coming to America due to civil war in his home country. His hiring was celebrated by city leaders eager to diversify the police force in a city rich in immigrants.

After he was charged, he was fired.

 

comments

  1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    How does pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger not constitute intent to kill, since a firearm is by definition a deadly weapon and its use is thus inherently deadly force? This should have been second degree murder, not third degree, which is murder through recklessness. As applied to use of firearms, recklessness would be a negligent discharge, not an intentional discharge.

    Now, let’s see the same outcome in Dallas, TX.

    1. avatar Milktoast says:

      Cop training 101:
      Question:
      A late night call. Rolling up to a potential crime scene in progress. A frantic witness running towards the safety of the police. What do you do?
      Answer:
      Shoot anyone approaching.

      This is what happens when cops place their own safety wildly above that of everyone else. If you are too fragile to serve then don’t!

    2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      Personally I had never even heard of 3rd degree murder. Either you kill with intent (murder) or you kill through recklessness (manslaughter). Seems like being convicted of manslaughter and 3rd degree murder is two convictions for one act.

      Also, a negligent discharge wouldn’t be recklessness because there’s no decision made that a reasonable person would know could potentially inflict injury to others. A reckless use of a firearm would be intentionally shooting your gun in an unsafe manner, but not intentionally meaning to do harm.

      1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

        I can see a third-degree murder charge being appropriate when you do something like firing blindly into an area where you cannot see a person who is actually hit. (Like firing through bushes, or a fence, etc.) But when you can actually see a person and are trying to actually shoot them (inappropriately), then yes, 3rd degree should be off the table.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Of course there’s 50 different nuanced definitions from the legal standpoint, one for each state. But to me, murder = unlawful intent to kill. With 1st degree it’s premeditated and with 2nd it’s a spur of the moment thing. I could maybe see 3rd degree if there was an intent to harm but not to kill. But if there’s no intent to harm that has to be manslaughter. Recklessly firing a gun in a direction where you can’t be reasonably sure there’s nobody in the path of your bullet is a lot like drunk driving. I’d call that manslaughter. You SHOULD HAVE KNOWN your actions could harm others. A negligent discharge doesn’t qualify because no matter how negligent you were it’s not an intentional act of recklessness. Kind of like an at fault accident, where you’re going to get cited for a moving violation and you are civilly liable for the damages you inflicted.

      2. avatar MB says:

        I am sure an armorer examined Noor’s pistol for malfunction and found none. A negligent discharge would most likely be considered recklessness endangerment, manslaughter. Guns only fire when the trigger is pulled. Pulling the trigger would be the intent to endanger.

        1. avatar John in AK says:

          Be cautious with that statement (“Guns only fire when the trigger is pulled.”) It’s incorrect.

          Some guns DO fire when the trigger is NOT pulled. It is RARE, but it does happen. Examples:

          Remington 700s (and all other Remingtons) with Walker triggers.

          Remington 870s (and all other Remingtons) with the Common Fire Control Group.

          Remington Nylon 66s and all derivatives thereof if the ‘frame’ (sheet metal and plastic) is flexed ‘just so.’

          Certain unnamed ‘off-brand’ semi-auto pistols when dropped. . ./sarc.

          There are other examples, naturally–enough known examples to state, with certainty, that guns DO fire without a trigger pull on occasion.

          Now, in THIS case, this was neither an accident, or negligence; This was an intentional shooting of a no-shoot target, and is being punished appropriately.

      3. avatar Kenneth says:

        Although nuanced by location, basically, first degree murder is a killing in cold blood, like an assassination. Or a mass shooter just killing anyone handy, for no cause at all.
        Murder in the second degree is still an intentional killing, but in the heat of the moment. Like one coming home unexpectedly, finding one’s wife in bed with the mailman, and just shooting both of them dead. It’s still murder, but that kind is at least understandable, and the thinking is that that kind deserves less punishment.
        Murder in the third degree is closer to an accident, but one that should never have happened. Like the guy who wanted his wife to shoot him through the phone book for a YT vid, so she did, and killed him. Or a guy driving a car that he knew had no brakes but he did so anyway, and then ran somebody over because he had no brakes. Someone dead not from an accident, but from negligent behavior. If the brakes just go out on a hill and people get run over, that’s an accident. If a guy deliberately drives down a hill with no brakes and runs people over, that’s 3rd degree murder.
        Still murder, but not as bad as the guy killing his wife and the mailman. That’s the basic thinking behind the degrees anyway. In the third case, the INTENT to kill is not present, but the risk of the behavior was high enough to warrant punishment. The first two degree both include the intent to kill, but one is cold blooded, and the other is in the heat of ‘passion’, or some other form of high emotional attachment.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          My only issue with that is, what’s manslaughter then? If causing death by a reckless act is 3rd degree murder then there’s no point in having a manslaughter charge.

        2. avatar Kenneth says:

          My understanding is that it is the same, but only lesser in the matter of the degree of negligence involved. Like maybe the guy was driving the car that he knew had no brakes, so he avoided the hills and took the flat way around instead. So he did show some care, but on the way a woman jumped out in front of him(he had the right-of-way), and he had the room to stop, but he couldn’t… because he had no brakes.
          That might well be the lesser charge, since he did show some care, and the woman WAS in the wrong, but yet the death would not have occurred if he had not knowingly operated the vehicle with no brakes.
          A jury might even find him not guilty on that one, since the woman did wrongfully jaywalk right in front of him. But I can still see a prosecutor bringing the charge anyway. He would probably figure he can convince the jury that the driving with no brakes was a worse offense than jaywalking, and she’s the dead one so he might figure he can tug on their heartstrings and use that to get what he wants. Another notch to add to his conviction record. Attorneys care little for the people involved, it’s just a matter of compiling a record that will get them their next raise, promotion, partnership, title, or whatever floats his boat.
          Clarence Darrow said: “The law does not pretend to punish everything that is dishonest. That would seriously interfere with business.” and “The trouble with law is lawyers”. Doesn’t sound like he had much respect for their morality, and yet he was one of the best and most famous around.

      4. avatar tdiinva says:

        It only exists in three states, MN, FL and PA. I don’t see how it differs from voluntary manslaughter.

        To answer the question how can it not be 2nd degree?

        Remember the dumbass guy and his girlfriend trying a YouTube stunt in Minnesota? Second degree manslaughter.

        https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.twincities.com/2018/03/14/minnesota-woman-sentenced-for-fatally-shooting-boyfriend-in-failed-youtube-stunt/amp/

        Noor should have claimed an ND and used cop priviledge to get involuntary manslaughter. If you go back and look at the investigation it was pretty obvious that IA and the DA were dropping hints all over the place for him to say ND so they could bury it. Noor stubbornly refused. He got bad legal advice

      5. avatar Tt78 says:

        What I don’t understand is how one can be convicted of both Murder and Manslaughter for the same death.

    3. avatar barnbwt says:

      Maybe he killed her with a warning shot by accident, or thought she was a dog (dark lol). I suspect this choice of charges was driven by the weird special (lower) standards that police operate under when it comes to the use of force. Because a scenario exists where he would be justified in returning fire (like if she suddenly began shooting through the car) that very loosely resembles what actually happened here, he was merely being ‘reckless’ in failing to recognize the reality was not that worst-case scenario and responding with lethal force.

      A very Alice-in-Wonderlandy type of logic to be sure, where an officer is presumed to constantly be in fear for his life unless we can prove he wasn’t (and if the guy started shooting after being startled, he probably truly was in fear for his life…though it was because he was a stupid asshole, not because he was justified)

      1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        When I was at IOBC, because our names were alphabetically proximate, I got paired up with a guy that would have easily done something like this. I spent a lot of my time and effort keeping him out of trouble. He wasn’t malicious he was just a classic case of the Dunning-Kruger effect in operation. Command wanted their numbers up so they tried to keep him. He eventually ‘felonied’ out even with me telling him he was doomed if he did a few of the things he did. Sometimes management keeps incompetents for various reasons.

    4. avatar Edward wardens. says:

      It’s only intent to kill when a black person is doing the killing. LOL.

      MY WHITENESS GIVES ME PRIVILEGES I WILL NOT WILLING SHARE AS I WANT THE BENEFIT OF THE SOUBT IF THE BLACK GUYS DO NOT GET IT. HONESTLY.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Does your handler know that you’re off your meds?

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Yes. They know. It’s to their benefit to keep their pawns off their meds.

      2. avatar daveinwyo says:

        FO. Ship somalies/ muzzies back to africa. send Oman too! Don’t care about color or race. Care about anti american islam.

    5. avatar FedUp says:

      How does pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger not constitute intent to kill,

      When most of the jury wants 2nd degree murder and a couple of them want manslaughter, and they meet in the middle.

  2. avatar cgray says:

    Noor “always wanted to serve”.

    Well, he’s gonna.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Nice.

  3. avatar Ohio9 says:

    Okay I’m confused. How did they convict him of both murder and manslaughter? Aren’t those two different charges for the same offense? Wouldn’t that be prohibited by double jeopardy laws?

    Anyway, man what a bunch of scumbag, hypocritical protesters. It turns out they only care about police brutality when it’s done by white officers against black victims. Apparently black officers should get a free pass.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      The race baiters have already been on TV. Queue the riot in three… two…. one….

  4. avatar Felix says:

    Considering how the white cop who shot the black CCW driver was acquitted, and that this cop was both black and a refugee immigrant, I would not be surprised if race was a factor. But the real travesty is that the cop who shot the CCW driver got off.

    Of course, I wasn’t on either jury, etc. But the disparity sure does smell.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Well, the jury was mostly colored (is it cool to say that again, now?) so I’d say race was considered to not be enough of a factor by the people who saw the evidence.

    2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Of course, I wasn’t on either jury, etc. But the disparity sure does smell.

      Of course, it had to be a disparity based on race. It couldn’t possibly have been the entirely different context and set of facts involved.

      Now, if the officer in the Dallas, TX, murder is acquitted, then you might have a case.

      1. avatar Felix says:

        The only disparity I could see is that one cop panicked outside the car shooting in, and the other cop panicked inside the car shooting out. Neither had any justification I could see other than panicked knee-jerk reaction. If anything, I’d give the inside cop (this one) slightly more room for doubt, since the victim surprised him by her sudden appearance. The CCW shooter had no such excuse. But neither had anywhere close to the temperament I’d expect.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          The only disparity I could see is that one cop panicked outside the car shooting in, and the other cop panicked inside the car shooting out. Neither had any justification I could see other than panicked knee-jerk reaction. If anything, I’d give the inside cop (this one) slightly more room for doubt, since the victim surprised him by her sudden appearance.

          One was visibly armed with a handgun; the other was visibly armed with a bathrobe.

          One was detained by the police for ostensibly unlawful behavior; the other called the police to request assistance.

          In one case, the police officer was conducting a traffic stop (which comes with a certain degree of inherent risk); in the other case, the officers were responding to reports of someone screaming (with no indication of unlawful activity taking place).

          Should I go on?

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          Chip, I’m surprised that you consider a traffic stop potentially more dangerous than a nighttime screaming call. The traffic stop concerns a misdemeanor, with no indication of violence. On the other hand, a night time screaming call indicates an assault or some other type of immediate criminal activity.

          And I believe the report indicates that when the woman approached the police car from an oblique angle, unannounced she smacked the side of the car with her hand. The startle response from Officer Noor clearly was an unintentional discharge. He did violate SOP by having his weapon already drawn, no excuse for that.

          But in a nighttime screaming call scenario, one can understand that the officers anticipated discovering a violent assault.

          In the other case we’re discussing here, as simple traffic stop gave no indication to the office or did anything more than a misdemeanor violation was involved. And the individuals ready admission of having a CCW showed his willingness to cooperate. The officer panicked, and shot without provocation, Castillo made no offensive actions and never left his vehicle.

          Looks like white privilege to me, just like the youngster up near Cincinnati who was shot in under two seconds without ever putting his hand on a weapon by a white officer who was then exonerated of any wrongdoing.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Sorry if my responses are without context. Any attempt to block quote is triggering the filter.

          Yes, traffic stops are inherently dangerous. See Maryland v Wilson (1997).

          A nighttime screaming call does not indicate an assault or other type of immediate criminal activity. Screaming is just that: screaming. This is all the information Noor had, from dispatch: “Squad 530 to 5024 Washburn Avenue South. Female screaming behind the building.”

          That neighborhood is quite safe. There was no reason to suspect dangerous activity afoot.

          A “startle response”? He reached across his partner, held his arm across his partner’s chest, and then fired his gun. This was not an Elmer Fudd-esque negligent trigger squeeze.

          I’ll hazard a guess that you haven’t followed the details of the incident or of the trial very closely. If they suspected a violent assault, then they violated every policy and best practice for investigating a suspected violent assault.

          I am not arguing one way or the other regarding exonerating the officer in the Castile incident. The argument I was making is merely refuting that reversed races was the only difference between the two incidents.

          As for “white privilege”: some people will see what they choose to see.

        4. avatar Felix says:

          Traffic stops as a class have potential for danger. This traffic stop had none. The driver did everything he was told, and got shot by a panicking officer who panicked for no reason except his own fears. Was race a factor in his own fears? We will never know. There was no justification for shooting.

        5. avatar Mike V says:

          Wrong. The incident with the “white” cop you stated was actually latino, and as for the only difference being one panicking outside the car versus inside the car, wrong again. The first case the officer was informed by the guy that he had a carry permit and was reaching for his identification out of sight, officer told him not to do that, and bam, horrible tragedy.

          This other guy…heard a noise…saw a person…bam. Now he didn’t even know what the noise was that startled him…he also had no evidence that the lady approaching the car had anything to do with it anyway.

          Both were overreactions. The one worse and more flagrant = jail time for one and no job for the other.

          The racial factors at play are always incorrectly identified.

        6. avatar That one guy says:

          Castile was stopped for looking like a robbery suspect. The broken taillight was the probable cause (excuse) needed to actually stop the car.

          The officer (thinking he might be encountering an armed robber), got his suspicions half-confirmed when Castile said he had a gun and a license to go with it.

          Officer tells Castile to not move. Castile reaches for his license. Officer tells Castile to not reach, Castile continues to reach. Officer shoots Castile for reaching.

          That’s a totally different timeline than what happened with the death of Damond.

    3. avatar CWT says:

      I bet Jeronimo Yanez would be surprised to find out he is white.

    4. avatar Mad says:

      I believe the cop who murdered the ccw guy was Mexican his last name is Geronimo cops do commit murder

      1. avatar Hiemy says:

        He is Native American.

        1. avatar Mad says:

          Thanks for the heads up.i do know this The great Apache leader Gerronimos name was given to him by the Mexicans.it was not Apache

  5. avatar barnbwt says:

    Hmm, I see the racist race hustlers are still at it. Yeah, a white cop shooting a black man mere inches across his partner’s nose, and without cause, would have seen zero consequences. Right. These bigots rather nakedly wanted all charges against Noor dropped because he was a Somali man who shot a white woman (or possibly because he was a Muslim as well)

    I have to say, Harrity not strongly testifying against his partner Noor’s recklessness & overreaction is sure telling about that good old thin blue line. If someone makes a ‘loud noise’ on your car that isn’t a gunshot, there is zero danger. This woman could have been wailing on the vehicle with a baseball bat & it still wouldn’t have justified lethal force. Law enforcement is family, and the family that slays together, stays together. It sounds like if Noor had simply been on the same side of the vehicle as the woman he killed, he’d likely still be working on that police force today.

  6. avatar DJ says:

    Calling the police increases your chances of being shot. You, your family and any dogs.

    See nothing, say nothing.

    Perfect example here of how they cover each other when they screw up.

    No evidence she ever touch the car. Turning body cams on and off. Called an innocent would they just murderer a addict.

    1. avatar Ohio9 says:

      They fired, arrested, and convicted the officer. What more do you want? The only extra thing they could have done was execute him right there on the spot.

      1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        Reserving judgment until after sentencing. If I had shot someone on deployment like that I would be looking at 20+

      2. avatar DJ says:

        How about some charges for the lying? How about some termination for turning the body cams off? How about this BS I feared for my life? Police are incapable of policing their own.

        Cops are so quick to pull the trigger they keep shooting their own.

        1. avatar Ohio9 says:

          Where is the proof any of the cops other than Noor were lying? The “I feared for my life defense” didn’t work here. This is a positive example showing that the police can be held accountable. This is example of the police successfully policing their own. I swear some people just can’t see what a victory looks like.

        2. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          Ohio I kinda get where you are going with that but having lived in Philadelphia and a few areas of NY the thin blue line and “copblocking” of misconduct charges are in some areas long running problems that can create a toxic relationship with the public (well more toxic with Philly and their population’s issues). Don’t know enough about this department so will leave that assessment to others and see what sentence is handed down.

        3. avatar User1 says:

          Talking about shooting their own:

        4. avatar Hannibal says:

          That’s not how such cameras work. You’d run out of space constantly if you were recording and saving everything. You are supposed to turn them on when something happens but this was such a WTF scenario out of the blue that I can totally see not turning it on. Your partner just put a bullet past your nose and blew some lady away, the last thing you’re thinking is about a camera. That said, there are advancements to try and make the cameras start saving (they are constantly recording on a loop) when they detect gunfire for just this sort of reason.

        5. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “That’s not how such cameras work. You’d run out of space constantly if you were recording and saving everything.”

          Our little security cameras record continuously for days on an internal 32GB microSD card. My body camera recorded continuously for 8 hours when I was using one. I would suspect that the issue is more battery life than storage space. That was the limiting factor for my personal body cam. Besides, cameras could easily download to a patrol car storage device of greater capacity whenever they get back in the cruiser. Some departments have their data start uploading when the unit rolls into the parking lot. It’s the same sort of capability.

        6. avatar Hannibal says:

          Maybe the axons I was familiar with were last gen? They had a buffer of 2 minutes max from before activation. Of course nobody REALLY wants them always recording and saving, anyway. Not the cop who wants to be able to fart without the patrol sgt hearing it later and not the citizen in a ‘no-snitch’ neighborhood that comes up to the cop and tells him the dope dealer is on the next corner again. The best case is to have them work similar to the ICAR system where there are various events that will automatically save the buffer and continue recording; gunshots, maybe loud noises in general (car crash? yelling?), etc.

          The situation presented in this case does not reinforce the need for body cameras as far as I can tell anyway. Bad shoot, cop was quickly charged and now convicted. The difficult ones are marginal situations like Michael Brown where a body camera could have made all the difference (not really, the same doofuses on Good Morning America would have seen him charging and said he should have been shot in the foot).

      3. avatar Rick says:

        I’d be fine with that.

    2. avatar MB says:

      Makes the case for multi directional dash-cams(360 degree view) for police. One they can’t turn off or edit the footage because is gets uploaded to the cloud and is only retrievable, but not modifiable.

      1. avatar DJ says:

        Now your on to something. Great idea.

      2. avatar User1 says:

        I think the 360 cams are much lower in quality.

        Texas has a lot of cams they don’t want to use and they can also modify the video after because not all of their cams have time codes…The sheriffs and chiefs don’t really care about them using their cams or turning them off to hide their illegal activity.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I am not seeing how 360 cams could possibly be lower quality than nothing.

        2. avatar User1 says:

          @LarryinTX

          True.

          I know they will go around saying the quality of the video in the dark is too low to use in trial. Making it almost point less…

  7. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

    Wasn’t she the one who was wearing a nightgown? Don’t know too many criminals running around in pj?s. How does one “carry” ?

    1. avatar DJ says:

      Sgt on seen said she WAS just a drug addict.

      And cops can’t understand people are fed up, even us whites.

  8. avatar kap says:

    at night a Lady slaps police car to get their attention, gets killed, by a Muslim Cop, Sharia law at its best, single woman out late not covered and no escort (so therefore not honorable) and can be killed in some countries.

    1. avatar Robb says:

      I really hope you’re being semi-sarcastic.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        About Sharia? He certainly is not. Although gang rape is the more customary result.

        1. avatar Robb says:

          I know he’s not joking about Shira law. I’m hoping he’s joking about that going through the officer’s head or the motive behind the shooting.

  9. avatar Roger J says:

    In his home country they kill women who have been raped to save her family’s honor. I’m sure he doesn’t understand any of this.

  10. avatar Jamesfromlakegeneva says:

    What type of firearms training do these officers get? Officer Noor fired his gun across what appears to be the face of his partner in the drawing. Was his partner injured by this discharge? Is his hearing permanently impacted?

    Same goes for the Officer that shot Philando Castile. He fired his pistol at Mr. Castile with a woman in the passenger seat right next to him and a small child strapped to a car seat in back. Amazing neither of the bystanders were hit by a pass through or ricochet.

    1. avatar WI Patriot says:

      And wonders behold, they’re both from Minneapolis PD, kinda makes you wonder…

      1. avatar DJ says:

        Exactly my point. Total disregard of people.

        What crime did the children commit?

    2. avatar User1 says:

      At least they fired her, but not charged for a crime. The police association defended her and criticized the chief for firing her.

  11. avatar Michael says:

    .410>, 12G<…-30-

  12. avatar WI Patriot says:

    Justice served…

    1. avatar Michael says:

      No. -30-

        1. avatar Michael says:

          Not even close. Discovery for civil trial will be… interesting. In any conspiracy, the first to… cooperate…gets the free pass…the rest get… stupid prizes for playing stupid games. They have no choice, they will have to settle the wrongful death case out of court with non-disclosure agreements for everyone…we live in interesting times…-30-

  13. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Test comment, to see how aggressive the filter is.

    1. avatar Michael says:

      1st. Amendment Trumps content filter. -30-

      1. avatar Mike V says:

        What does -30- mean?

        1. avatar Michael says:

          Look it up, if you see it on the internet it must be the truth. -30-

        2. avatar Dave G. says:

          “Thirty” or “30” means “end of copy.” It’s an industry tradition in the editorial rooms of American newspapers. Where it originated from, nobody seems to know.

    2. avatar User1 says:

      I got, “Sorry, you have been blocked. You are unable to access thetruthaboutguns…”

  14. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Isn’t diversity awesome? Sometimes it works & sometimes it don’t,,, Minneapolis has a lot of it , they seem to be in the news a lot lately… wonderful.

    1. avatar User1 says:

      Representation is nice. Diversity can bring progress. The issue is forced assimilation and people getting positions without merit.

      It’s better to have a small police force of qualified and moral people rather than a large police force with whomever they can find.

      I don’t think women should be armed police unless they have a male partner. The rules of “engagement” should also be brought in line with the rules that non government citizens have to follow.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Oh, my! That’s asking for trouble! Most everybody in America seems to have forgotten that the Equal Rights Amendment, to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender, was resoundingly defeated. What you suggest is perfectly acceptable under our Constitution, as the same attitude toward our military would be. But due to political correctness, no one would DARE to suggest such a thing.

        1. avatar User1 says:

          They will change their attitude quickly when young women are required to join the draft/military for combat roles. Their body, their choice.

          Forcing so called “discrimination” laws has unattended consequences. Places like Hooters has to hire men over women (effectively killing their business model). The motor sport industry needs to also hire male models instead of only female models.

        2. avatar Huntmaster says:

          The Equal Rights Amendment was not overwhelmingly defeated. It passed the House and the Senate. Thirty-five of the necessary states thirty-eight states ratified it. Time range out for the last three. Obviously there was pretty substantial support. That’s not a resounding defeat.

  15. avatar Michael says:

    So, will somebody tell me if I’ve got this right; a .410 shotgun is a smaller bore than a 12 gauge. Both are smaller than .30 caliber. Am I right or am I right? -30-

    1. avatar jwm says:

      No. The .410 is a, roughly, .45 caliber. The 12 ga. is roughly .72 caliber.

      1. avatar Michael says:

        Thanks, I got the numbers reversed, I have numeric dyslexia. -30-

        1. avatar DaveP. says:

          …don’t you mean, -03- ?

        2. avatar Dani in WA says:

          That’s called “dyscalculia”.

        3. avatar Dave G. says:

          I can remember as a boy having my Dad, who was an old-time newspaper reporter, explain to me the meaning of -30- on some copy he was preparing at home.

          Seeing your use of -30- on your copy got me to thinking about my Dad and also the origin of the -30- mark as a signal to the typesetter to signify the end of story. So, I looked it up.

          This link will get you to Get the Scoop, a news writer’s manual. There you will find eighteen (18) theories as to the origin of -30- (on Page 9).

          https://web.archive.org/web/20151129191926/http://jea.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/stylebook.pdf
          -30-

  16. avatar former water walker says:

    Golly I wonder if the convicted cop is part of the Ilhan clan? I guess his Somali-ness didn’t help(banging on a cop car ain’t a bright thing to do in a dark alley though). THIS has nothing to do with the Philando Castile shooting by an (ALSO) non-white Geronimo! That dude was dumb and high…

    1. avatar User1 says:

      The blackness and refugee cards got him a lesser conviction. The black people can’t let him walk just because he is black, they claim they want police accountability, thus they must convict.

      Who are you talking about being high?

      1. avatar former water walker says:

        Castile reeked of mary ju wana…reportedly😄Probably helped get GERONIMO! off. The high & stupid defense.

  17. avatar Mercutio says:

    The un-indicted co-conspirators in this case are the Police Dept and City government. Immediately after the killing, even the Star Tribune (Pravda Midwest) ran stories about how Noor was deemed unfit for the job because he was psychologically unprepared for it. But the Department, following the city’s biases pushed him through because they “needed” more black, Muslim officers. The officials who pushed him thru are just as guilty if not more so. The victim’s family has a civil suit against the City, the past and present chief of police and the other officer in the car. Unfortunately when the city loses this case, it will be taxpayers not the actual perps who pay.

  18. avatar User1 says:

    At least he was found guilty… That’s progress. Would have been worse if they let the cop walk like they usually do.

    Hopefully a bunch of Houston boys get properly charged and convicted. They need to fear the wrath of the people so they straighten up their conduct. After all, the police are not there to help you, they are there to put you in a cage or a casket. The less power the police have the better, especially in Texas.

  19. avatar Ralph says:

    He’s not the first bad cop to be convicted, and he won’t be the last. There are plenty more bed cops, just as there are so-called good cops who enable and protect the bad ones.

    The whole rotten structure is coming apart at the seams. As it should.

    1. avatar WhiteDevil says:

      I agree Ralph. I’ve thought about becoming a policeman, but I really can’t bring myself to join a corrupt organization.

  20. avatar GlockMeAmadeus says:

    When do the riots start?

  21. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

    “Local activists criticized the conviction, pointing out that the St. Anthony, Minnesota police officer who shot and killed licensed concealed carrier Philando Castile was acquitted.”

    Before I get too uptight about it, is this maybe a poorly written summary? Because it seems to be saying that the protesters want cops who murder people to ALL be acquitted.

  22. avatar Cops are not our friends says:

    One cop in jail? Not even a good start. There are at least 9999 more to go.

    1. avatar User1 says:

      I’m waiting to see what happens to those Houston police that illegally raided a home, murdered two people and a dog, then tried to cover up their crimes. The police chief is trying very hard to cover it up and get his guys off.

      1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        Got a name or reference on that? I’d like to read about it.

        1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          God damn, that is messed up.

      2. avatar Matt(TX) says:

        Has there been any follow up on that? In my neck of the woods, it has fallen completely off the radar.

        1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

          It has pretty well died after the retirements.

        2. avatar User1 says:

          Last I heard was they sent out search warrants for two officers’ desks at the department, some people were removed from the investigation because of their conduct and the officers involved are starting to retire early.

          The police chief and police union are trying very hard to hide everything and protect their brothers.

  23. avatar User1 says:

    “I’m Amber Guyger. i need — get me… I’m in… I know, but I’m… I’m going to lose my job.”

  24. avatar W says:

    “That’s a helluva price to pay for being stylish.”

  25. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    A shame he won’t publicly hang. Make he will catch a shank in the joint.
    At least he will look forward to several years of various bodily fluids in his food.

  26. avatar Ark says:

    Yeah they probably shouldn’t have ignored red flags and railroaded him through the hiring process because muh diversity.

  27. avatar Michael says:

    If I meant -03-, I would have entered -03-. -30-.

    1. avatar Aaron says:

      why do you keep adding the archaic shorthand for “end of transmission” to your comments?

      we can can see the end of your comments. there is no need to use obsolete codes to tell us that your comment has ended.

      1. avatar Michael says:

        No, but it makes it easy to know that they are really my posts…trolls can be troublesome. Besides, I like doing it and it harms no one…

      2. avatar Michael says:

        Besides, I’m of superior intellect and mine is the final word that needs to be said !

        1. avatar Dave G. says:

          You forgot to put 30 to that one, though!

  28. avatar Hannibal says:

    I can just imagine nearing the end of a shift and you get another BS call by some neighbor who calls the cops every time the girl in the apartment across the street screams during sex. You get there, start writing notes on your MCT, and you hear something coming up behind you in the car. Uh oh, probably nothing, but BLAM suddenly you have permanent hearing loss and (riiiiiiingggg) and can’t see a thing because your partner just fired a handgun across your face, about a foot from your ears and eyes. And then you realize he just blew away the complainant. What the hell do you think and do at that point? Is there a Dunkin Donuts open because I think it’s time for a coffee.

  29. avatar Jared says:

    What’s ironic is that she was an outspoken imported gun grabber from Australia. Mrs. Only The Police Should Have Guns got killed by a cop with a gun who has no business being in the U.S. if we actually had immigration laws.

    1. avatar Adub says:

      I didn’t know that. Source? Sometimes karma is a bitch.

  30. avatar Chris Morton says:

    Black Lies Matter must not know whether to crap or go blind.

    Their victim pyramid has turned into a Moebius loop.

  31. avatar B.D. says:

    Still not as popular as a “white” officer killing a black lunatic/thug/idiot. Wonder why?

  32. avatar Buff cousin Elroy says:

    Have fun on your extended vacation to a concrete hotel.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email