HOW? How does this keep happening?

JCornelius · Jul 18, 2017

Clairels said:
/.../And he'll get off scot-free.

"white-free"

However, just because others walked, doesn't mean he should. If at least in this case some semblance of justice is served, I'll take it.

This could turn out to be an instance of someone's politico ego tied up to having Somalian minorities serving on the force, and thus turning increasingly blind eyes on anything that could threaten that "political capital investment" until it all went too far. Which approach to things, is, unfortunately, not untypical for politicians from any side. If there's even a hint of that really being the case, expect the racist right fractions to make it out as thought this never happens anywhere else, only in "PC gone mad" places.

mccardey · Jul 19, 2017

This is Justine Damond

Three weeks before she was shot dead by police Damond, a 40-year-old Australian who had changed her surname from Ruszczyk in anticipation of her wedding, climbed into a storm drain and rescued a group of ducklings near her home in Minneapolis by gathering them in the folds of her skirt. The way her friends tell it, this incident was special but not atypical.

By chance, the rescue happened at a corner in the Linden Hills neighbourhood, outside the home of photojournalist Angela Jimenez, who filmed it. After Damond died Jimenez sought and received permission from Damond’s family to release the footage and this has been shared by the Guardian.

.

JCornelius · Jul 19, 2017

Not infrequently, when someone is shot by cops, even when the shooting itself was inexcusable, one could argue that the victim was already on a trajectory that would culminate sooner or later in something like this: petty theft or burglary, drug dealing, spouse abuse, brawling, stuff like that.

But then it happens to someone whose life trajectory had nothing whatsoever in it to hint at such a grisly and senseless climax, and frankly, the storyteller in me rebels--where's the narrative logic? The hell did this come from? One wants to sit down on the table with Mitya and Alyosha and be a third participant in the talk.

Twick · Jul 19, 2017

This is going to be a mess no matter what happens. If Noor is convicted in her death, it'll read as "White cops can shoot innocent black people freely, but black cops go to jail if they shoot white people." If he's acquitted, the message will be "Be as non-threatening as you will, a cop can kill you with impunity any time he wants." Neither of these are good conclusions.

nighttimer · Jul 19, 2017

There are some important points to this story and they are troublesome to say the least.

Minneapolis police officers Matthew Harrity and Mohamed Noor eased their patrol vehicle into the alley in response to a call of a possible assault Saturday night in the quiet South Side neighborhood. The squad’s lights were off and a “loud sound” 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 the squad’s open window, striking Damond in the abdomen. The officers began CPR, but she was dead 20 minutes later.

After nearly three days of silence, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension on Tuesday released the first preliminary account of what happened that night based on an interview with Harrity, 25.

The fatal shooting of Damond, a 40-year-old spiritual healer from Australia who was engaged to be married, has made international headlines since it happened, stirring community unrest toward police and calls from family and friends for an explanation as to why Noor, 31, shot her.

The new information from the BCA does not fully answer those questions — in part because Noor has 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 respond to a request for comment. Harrity’s attorney, Fred Bruno, confirmed he was representing Harrity but did not comment further.

I'm gonna go way out on a limb and speculate it is not standard operating procedure for a police officer to draw and discharge his firearm shooting across his partner seated beside him to blow away an unarmed woman in her pajamas.

Not standard operating procedure in Minnesota, Texas, North Dakota, or the dark side of the moon. A jumpy cop who pulls his piece and plugs the first thing moving too close might not possess the correct temperament to be a cop.

Then after shooting somebody, the cop doesn't even have to make a statement of what happened to anyone.

What's a "loud sound?" Post-Fourth of July fireworks? A car backfiring? Two cats in heat? A post taco-binge fart? The dying scream of a woman who's just been gut-shot?

Anything wrong with this picture? :Wha:

cmhbob · Jul 19, 2017

nighttimer said:
Then after shooting somebody, the cop doesn't even have to make a statement of what happened to anyone.

No one who shoots someone or is accused of shooting someone ever has to make a statement. That's covered under the Constitution. You shouldn't have to give up your Fifth Amendment rights based on your job.

nighttimer · Jul 19, 2017

cmhbob said:
No one who shoots someone or is accused of shooting someone ever has to make a statement. That's covered under the Constitution. You shouldn't have to give up your Fifth Amendment rights based on your job.

So if on my way home tonight I should decide to shoot some dirty so-and-so that cuts me off, I don't have to say shit about it to anybody because its my Constitutional right? What a country!

There's still something a little incongruous about an officer of the law hiding behind it because he doesn't want to talk to investigators. It's not so much I question Noor's right to avoid self-incrimination as I'm wondering how is it right for him to refuse to provide answers to the questions only he can answer.

It's peachy how Mohamed Noor's Constitutional rights are being protected while Justine Damond gets her last rites.

Twick · Jul 19, 2017

nighttimer said:
So if on my way home tonight I should decide to shoot some dirty so-and-so that cuts me off, I don't have to say shit about it to anybody because its my Constitutional right? What a country!

There's still something a little incongruous about an officer of the law hiding behind it because he doesn't want to talk to investigators. It's not so much I question Noor's right to avoid self-incrimination as I'm wondering how is it right for him to refuse to provide answers to the questions only he can answer.

It's peachy how Mohamed Noor's Constitutional rights are being protected while Justine Damond gets her last rites.

The thing about rights is that you don't dismiss them just for someone you don't like.

Yes, Noor doesn't have to talk to investigators. Just as your standard serial killer, caught with 12 bodies under the back garden, or a mobster suspected of 20 contract killings, can stare down the investigators and snarl, "I ain't talking to nobody but my lawyer." Because that is a right in the American Constitution. It isn't qualified by "unless you're probably guilty, then you have to cooperate."

Fingers · Jul 19, 2017

cmhbob said:
No one who shoots someone or is accused of shooting someone ever has to make a statement. That's covered under the Constitution. You shouldn't have to give up your Fifth Amendment rights based on your job.

I understand the fifth amendment, but if youre a cop, and you choose not to aid in the investigation how is that not impeding an investigation? The law is on the books, so it must apply somewhere. And what about holding the cops to a higher standard? I don't see this turning out any differently than any other cop shooting. There may or may not be a trial and the cop might lose his job, but don't think he will see the inside of a jail for murder.

Clairels · Jul 19, 2017

But can't they stick him in an interrogation room for hours under hot lights with nothing to eat or drink in hopes he'll talk? I'm not being facetious, I'm really curious. TV has made me genuinely unsure how this works.

blacbird · Jul 19, 2017

Like it or not, he has the right to remain silent, and to be represented by an attorney. That will be the Miranda warning, if he is actually arrested and charged with a crime.

That's the way our nation's legal rules work, and, despite the evident egregious nature of this event, we should all be grateful that it does (or should, at least) work this way.

caw

nighttimer · Jul 19, 2017

Twick said:
The thing about rights is that you don't dismiss them just for someone you don't like.

Yes, Noor doesn't have to talk to investigators. Just as your standard serial killer, caught with 12 bodies under the back garden, or a mobster suspected of 20 contract killings, can stare down the investigators and snarl, "I ain't talking to nobody but my lawyer." Because that is a right in the American Constitution. It isn't qualified by "unless you're probably guilty, then you have to cooperate."

I got all that, Twick. But I don't have to like it.

There's still a big difference between Stan the Serial Killer who won't talk and Officer Offed Somebody. They both are protected by their Constitutional rights, but only one of them is legally empowered to take a life.

There is a perception the police can't fairly investigate the police. This lack of clarity and transparency may be necessary to ensure Noor receives a fair trial (if it ever gets to that point), but it does nothing to erase that perception.

Twick · Jul 19, 2017

Clairels said:
But can't they stick him in an interrogation room for hours under hot lights with nothing to eat or drink in hopes he'll talk? I'm not being facetious, I'm really curious. TV has made me genuinely unsure how this works.

Miranda. As soon as he says he wants a lawyer, he HAS to be able to see one.

Sure, they could keep him locked up without food or water - until his family get a lawyer on the case with that pesky "habeas corpus." And forget about any information they obtained after he says "I want a lawyer" being admissible. Even indirect things they discover from his statement would be "fruit of the poison tree."

Watch more true crime, where they have to struggle with this stuff, than fictional procedurals, where the writers believe that police get usable statements by thumping on the table and screaming at the subject.

ETA: While Noor cannot be forced to cooperate, the same doesn't apply to the other officer in the car. His testimony will probably be the more interesting, since as much as he might lie to protect a fellow officer, he doesn't have quite the self-interest that Noor does.

rugcat · Jul 19, 2017

OK, absent almost any information, it's pointless to speculate. Of course, I'll do it anyway.

Cops are in the alley looking for a potentially violent suspect. They were responding to a possible sexual assault. They hear a loud noise somewhere and it makes them jumpy.

Ms. Damond comes up to their car to talk to them, and the officer in the passengers seat, who hasn't seen her approaching, looks over and sees a figure in the dark suddenly looming by the driver's window. He panics and fires his weapon.

He almost instantly realizes he effed up, to put it mildly. He sees himself possibly going to jail. He's not going to say a word until he sits down with his lawyer and maps out some sort of strategy to avoid the consequences, or at least as much of them as possible.

nighttimer · Jul 19, 2017

rugcat said:
OK, absent almost any information, it's pointless to speculate. Of course, I'll do it anyway.

Cops are in the alley looking for a potentially violent suspect. They were responding to a possible sexual assault. They hear a loud noise somewhere and it makes them jumpy.

Ms. Damond comes up to their car to talk to them, and the officer in the passengers seat, who hasn't seen her approaching, looks over and sees a figure in the dark suddenly looming by the driver's window. He panics and fires his weapon.

He almost instantly realizes he effed up, to put it mildly. He sees himself possibly going to jail. He's not going to say a word until he sits down with his lawyer and maps out some sort of strategy to avoid the consequences, or at least as much of them as possible.

"Effed up?" Ya think? :Wha:

Let me repeat what I said: Noor fired across his partner through the squad’s open window, striking Damond in the abdomen.

If Officer Harrity had been leaning forward he might have caught the bullet intended for Damond. Then what would Noor do? "Oh well, already punched one ticket. Might as well punch the other of the only witness." Then Noor could tell any fairtytale he wanted to make up and there would be those ready to believe it. It's not as though the body or the car cameras were turned on to put the lie to the story.

However, I agree with you. Speculation IS useless, but based upon what we DO know, my speculation is as likely as yours, if far more cynical. This is not me comin' at ya neck, rugcat. I'm just not in the right intellectual or philosophical head space to come up with a rational explanation for Noor's thus far inexplicable act.

What happened to Justine Damond is a million miles past the "effed up" exit and barrels headlong into the Royally FUCKED UP Ditch.

rugcat · Jul 19, 2017

nighttimer said:
However, I agree with you. Speculation IS useless, but based upon what we DO know, my speculation is as likely as yours, if far more cynical. This is not me comin' at ya neck, rugcat. I'm just not in the right intellectual or philosophical head space to come up with a rational explanation for Noor's thus far inexplicable act.

Well, I'm just trying to come up with what might have happened. That any police officer would actually do such a thing is still inexplicable.

Diana Hignutt · Jul 20, 2017

Why can they turn their body cams off? Having cameras watch the watchmen is pointless if they can turn them off at will.

ElaineA · Jul 20, 2017

Harrity is 25????? My eldest son will be 25 in a few months. I could no sooner see him as a seasoned cop than as a brain surgeon. And not because he couldn't *do* the job, but the inexperience level...what was the Minneapolis Police Dept thinking, putting 2 inexperienced people in one car together? It's my understanding Noor was only a cop for 2 years, that he was a property manager before that.

Splendor · Jul 20, 2017

ElaineA said:
Harrity is 25????? My eldest son will be 25 in a few months. I could no sooner see him as a seasoned cop than as a brain surgeon. And not because he couldn't *do* the job, but the inexperience level...what was the Minneapolis Police Dept thinking, putting 2 inexperienced people in one car together. It's my understanding Noor was only a cop for 2 years, that he was a property manager before that.

Excellent point. Reminds me of that young school bus driver that killed those kids by speeding.

Today on the news it is reported her fiance hired the same lawyer that defended Philande's family and reached a 3 million settlement. Not that it would bring her back...just awful.

cmhbob · Jul 20, 2017

Diana Hignutt said:
Why can they turn their body cams off? Having cameras watch the watchmen is pointless if they can turn them off at will.

It's a privacy issue. You want to store all those hours when they're in the can, at meals, or officers chatting about whatever it is they chat about between calls? I mentioned upthread that body cameras work the same way cruiser cameras work. They're constantly saving the last 30 seconds in a buffer. When the camera is turned on, it saves the last 30 seconds to the recording and goes from there.

I had an interesting perspective passed on to me yesterday: were the cameras turned off, or not turned on yet? Yes, the basic effect - not in operation - is the same. But the way we phrase it shapes the context and suggests intent. Saying "the cameras had not yet been activated" is much more benign than "they turned them off."

cmhbob · Jul 21, 2017

Chief: Australian woman shot by cop 'did not have to die'

"The actions in question go against who we are in the department, how we train and the expectations we have for our officers"

http://www.kcra.com/article/chief-australian-woman-shot-by-cop-did-not-have-to-die/10338702 Video autoplay warning. It opens with post-shooting audio.

cmhbob · Jul 21, 2017

Axon (formerly TASER Int'l) has previously announced a sensor add-on to holsters that will activate all Axon cameras in a 30-foot radius when the weapon is drawn. The system can tie into vehicle systems as well, and be triggered by lights, sirens, or door opening as well as weapon draw.

Axon link

This automates the activation of cameras, and takes much of the decision-making away from the beat officers.

It's worth noting that cameras would have been almost useless in this case. Dash cams face front. Body cameras face whichever way the officer is facing. Both systems usually save the last 30 seconds of video, but not audio. So the cameras wouldnt't have seen anything useful, and any useful audio would have been lost to the buffer.

cmhbob · Jul 21, 2017

Aaand the chief is out.

nighttimer · Jul 21, 2017

cmhbob said:
Axon (formerly TASER Int'l) has previously announced a sensor add-on to holsters that will activate all Axon cameras in a 30-foot radius when the weapon is drawn. The system can tie into vehicle systems as well, and be triggered by lights, sirens, or door opening as well as weapon draw.

Axon link

This automates the activation of cameras, and takes much of the decision-making away from the beat officers.

It's worth noting that cameras would have been almost useless in this case. Dash cams face front. Body cameras face whichever way the officer is facing. Both systems usually save the last 30 seconds of video, but not audio. So the cameras wouldnt't have seen anything useful, and any useful audio would have been lost to the buffer.

Whether the cameras would actually "have been almost useless in this case" is a judgment call on your part and it doesn't matter. Noor and Harrity not having their cameras turned on in a lethal force situation was a violation of police policy.

The officer who shot and killed 40-year-old Justine Damond late Saturday apparently violated his department’s rules on the use of body cameras when he failed to activate the device.

Damond had called 911 to report a disturbance and was in the alley behind her home when she met two officers, according to reports. The officers’ body cameras were not turned on, and dashcam video from the officers’ squad car did not capture the incident, according to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA).

The Minneapolis Police Department’s Policy and Procedure manual says that any use of force requires the camera’s activation. If things change quickly and the officer is too busy, he or she should activate the camera “as soon as it is safe to do so,” according to the manual.

The cameras constantly record a 30-second video buffer, a so-called “lookback” that allows officers to capture whatever happened in the half-minute before it’s activated.

The BCA, which is investigating the shooting, said in a statement that it will be the Police Department’s job to determine whether the officers violated the department’s body camera policy. A police spokesman said Monday that the department had no comment on the officers’ use of body cameras.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on Monday called for penalties against officers who do not activate their cameras, saying the death of Justine Damond should have been recorded.

“This violation of policy thwarted the public’s right to know what happened to Ms. Damond and why the police killed her,” ACLU Interim Executive Director Teresa Nelson said in a statement.

She urged the BCA to release any audio recordings that might have been made by the officer’s squad car dashcam.

Blong Yang, chairman of the Minneapolis City Council’s Public Safety Committee, said that it would likely take a closer look at the department’s body camera program at its meeting next week.

Members’ attention was drawn by a KSTP report last week that said Minneapolis officers don’t turn on their cameras as often as they should. The lack of bodycam footage of Saturday’s shooting was also troubling, Yang said.

“It’s concerning that the bodycams weren’t on,” he said.

It's more than "concerning." It appears to be deliberate in an attempt to circumvent the rules.

Minneapolis PD’s body camera policy requires that officers record video during any “critical incident” occurring in the line of duty. Though Axon Signal can engage body cameras when a cruiser’s lights are turned on, a report from the Star Tribune indicates the officers approaching Damond’s home had their lights turned off.

Minnesota ACLU interim director Teresa Nelson called for the release of the audio from the 911 call and any dash camera audio and / or video from the incident. The City of Minneapolis released transcripts of Damond’s 911 calls Wednesday, according to the StarTribune.

"By failing to turn on their body cameras when they encountered Ms. Damond, the two Minneapolis Police officers violated their department’s policy, 4-223, on body cameras,” Nelson said in a statement. “This violation of policy thwarted the public’s right to know what happened to Ms. Damond and why the police killed her. The two officers broke the policy not only when they didn’t activate the body cameras before the incident, but also when they failed to do so after the use of force.”

The incident comes at a time when body cameras — once a nearly universal answer to how communities could more effectively monitor and establish ties with local police — are becoming more controversial. State laws are clamping down on public access to body camera footage. And while products like Axon Signal are designed to ensure that body camera footage is captured — for the courts, if not necessarily for the public — incidents like this one show that it’s not foolproof solution. Meanwhile, Axon is embroiled in a long-standing court battle with a competitor, Digital Ally, over whether its auto-activation products violate a Digital Ally patent.

It may be a fine legal strategy for Noor to remain silent and refuse to speak to the authorities about what happened, but in the absence of him defining himself, others are taking the opportunity to define Noor and not in the most flattering of terms. In Australia, The Daily Telegraph (which reads like it's a bit of a rag) blasts Noor as the "killer cop" of Justine Damond and found someone to claim he "didn't respect women."

...it was revealed the cop who shot Ms Damond dead, Mohamed Noor, is known in the townhouse complex where his large family lives as quick-tempered, “jumpy” and “extremely nervous”.

New insight into the character of the Minneapolis policeman emerged as investigators released transcripts of the two emergency calls Ms Damond made just before Noor shot her dead last Saturday night.

Noor, 31, is the oldest of Mohamed Abass and Rahmo Ali’s ten children and is a frequent presence at his parents’ modest white two-storey home, which they share with his four younger siblings and is just 2km from his apartment.

Forklift driver Chris Miller, 49, has lived next door for the past two years and said he wasn’t surprised to learn Noor was the policeman making international headlines for firing on Ms Damond after she called 911 about what she thought was a sexual assault in the alley behind her house.

“He is extremely nervous ... he is a little jumpy ... he doesn’t really respect women, the least thing you say to him can set him off,” Mr Miller said.

“When they say a policeman shot an Australian lady I thought uh, oh but then when they said who it was I was like, ‘OK.’”

He said Noor, who has refused to explain to investigators what led him to shoot dead bride-to-be Damond, was a strict and ill-tempered presence in the townhouse block, where children play together in a playground in a small park between the units.

“He got into it with the kids, they were outside playing and something got stuck in a tree and he came out and he just started yelling at the kids because they were out here playing,” Mr Miller said.

“He has little respect for women he has little respect for blacks and kids,” said Mr Miller, who is African-American.

“He has an air like you just couldn’t really be around him.”

Wheels keep turnin'...

mccardey · Jul 21, 2017

nighttimer said:
In Australia, The Daily Telegraph

Yeah, no, that's a rubbish source though (not your fault). Mostly the province of right-wing shock-jocks. Guardian Australia is a better place to start - or the Sydney Morning Herald.

HOW? How does this keep happening?

No Gods No Masters

Did...did I do that?

No Gods No Masters

My cat Toby

Born at sea

No Gods No Masters

Lost in the Fog

No Gods No Masters

Lost in the Fog

Very Tired

All about that action, boss.

Did...did I do that?

Did...did I do that?

Did...did I do that?

Did...did I do that?

No Gods No Masters