...in Minneapolis to pound on a police vehicle with your hand, a paranoid cop shot this women out of fear she might hurt him, this is an idiotic reaction by a cop & he should be prosecuted for this stupid action.

I don't see how this case will ever come to trial, much less the cop going to prison.

 

The cop is doing the smart thing (for a criminal at least) by not saying a word. Without any video evidence, or his partner having an "attack of conscience", or even more unlikely "self incrimination", just how is the DA going to compile a case against him?  

 
I completely agree that the cop was paranoid, most likely pulled a "Barnie Fife" and while "murder" might be too strong a wrong, he certainly killed an innocent woman for no good reason, but I have agree with Jack that criminal prosecution is going to be almost impossible.

The shooter, it has been reported, been on the force only about 2 years or so and has had several complaints against him already.

Is he liked by his fellow cops?
Did he get along well with them?

Regardless the shooter gives the force a bad name and reputation (not sure what the ir reputation was before the shooting) but is worse now.

What are the possibilities the shooters partner turn on him to get rid of him?
It is a very rare occurrence but if he is not liked by his fellow cops…who knows.  

Race of course can be an issue too, since the shooter is Somali. What about his partner?
The rest of the department?

Since little to nothing is known about the investigation, other than speculation by the press and others who know nothing, there are many questions to be answered.  

Way too many facts not in evidence to suggest he committed a crime. Lets hear from the two witnesses and the defendant, examine all the other evidence and see how it all shakes out. Not sure what importance you are placing on the car being pounded by hand, as it isn't in context as yet.

 
But I do think people here get confused. It seems like you, and others, believe the cop should either be guilty of a felony or be completely exonerated, as if those are the only two possibilities.  

 
Many times in these cases, there is a third possibility; the shooting was accidental. Think about the Tamir Rice case for example. We typically don't place people in jail, much less charge them with a crime, if an accident has occurred.

 
This cop will no doubt be fired and this case will end in a civil law suit, or more likely a large, out of court settlement.  

 
But as GaG has said, I think the probability of a guilty verdict, as we have seen in so many other cases, is highly unlikely here, with the limited facts we do have but lets wait and see.

The shooter had 21 months service and the driver 12 or 13 months I believe. They weren't sent on a call to break up a fist fight or to check on someone who was breaking a noise violation.  

 
They were sent on a call that had a reasonable chance of a perp having a weapon of some kind, thus raising the risk the cops would have to draw their guns.  

 
Someone up the ladder in the PD is going to have to answer for this bad pairing, even if their police work was exemplary.

However, they were not turned on!      What good is it?        Is it something that can be used against the killer cop?

Here is another police shooting near Memphis, TN.   A 16 year old kid was shot and killed outside some rehab center or something like it.

My goodness.    Are police in this country not trained on anything else other than shooting people at sight.?

I believe that would qualify as a justifiable concern Mr Huck, thus specifically making it a non paranoid event.  Also, paranoia is defined as having an "irrational suspicion." I don't think it is irrational for police to think some people are out to kill them, for some certainly are, and in higher numbers than in the past.

...who, BTW, are also cops.  And if the blame does fall on the superiors, I'm sure you'll find some way to exonerate them too.

Only prejudiced, ignorant and impatient types do that. LOL

 
Do you know any?

...Websters, I guess I just equated the obviously unfounded fear that caused officer Noor,s action with that word. The squad was moving slowly in the alleyway Ms. Damon knocked on the back window to get their attention, the squad stopped & she went to the drivers side open window where officer Noor shot her from the passenger seat. Maybe the gun went off accidentally, but why even point a gun at a woman in pajamas standing at the side of the car, if officer Noor had any defensible reason for his action why won't he make a statement ?

...type who would place blame before an investigation is complete  --  YOU!!

Read your previous post:  "Someone up the ladder in the PD is going to have to answer for this bad pairing..."  

The investigation isn't complete but you're the judge, jury and executioner, deciding that it was a "bad pairing."  Why don't you wait for all the facts to be in before making a rush to judgment?

How many people have to keep dying at the hands of these skittish ass cops before someone holds them accountable?  I mean this shit is utterly ridiculous.  Empathize with me for a second.  I served 20 plus years in the Marine Corps, when we first went into Iraq it was literally the wild wild west damn near.  Then we when to a kindler, gentler time when you had to have positive identification and no other choice but to escalate deadly force.  Meaning if a guy shot at you with an AK-47 and you identified him then and only then could you return fire.  On the other end of that scenario, if a guy shot at you and you identified him and you chased him down, but before you caught him he ditched the AK and picked up a broom then you couldn't return fire.  Also mixed in to those scenarios, is collateral damage, meaning if a guy shot at you, not only did you have to positively identify him, but if you returned fire you had to ensure that no innocent people were endangered.  

Bad guys learned this quick and would fire at my squad and dip into a group of people.  Also, if you still could positively identify the shooter, detained him, ran gunpowder residue test, test comes back positive, guy goes away just to get released two weeks later ANNNNND get paid by the government for being locked up.  Now lets say you shot back, you get damn near put on trial by the JAG officer and somehow made out to be wrong for doing your job.  So why are all the cops being let off the hook because they spit out some magical punch line of "I felt my life was endangered."  Shouldn't it be the opposite?  Shouldn't cops be held to the same if not more of a standard as our men and women who serve overseas?  

And a "bad pairing" isn't a crime.  

 
These concepts are really difficult for you to grasp. Why is that?

As they face a trial, with diversified juries, they are routinely found not guilty.  

 
Sorry to disappoint you but we have a constitution in place. People are presumed innocent until proven guilty. You apparently disagree with this presumption, which is your constitutional right to do so.

Imagine the stupid shit you would be saying if you were?

 
You are also someone not to pleased with our constitution. He has the right to remain silent and is following his attorneys advice on the matter. I am sure you would tell your attorney to fuck off and you would give a statement.  

 
I would have thought, after you got a major piece of info wrong about this case previously, you would tread lightly with the facts going forward, but you have now made it obvious they mean nothing to you.  

 
Thank you for clearing that up for me.

and while it's most definitely a good way to stay out of prison, it doesn't do him a lot of good in the court of public opinion.  

 
We both know that "Not guilty" and "Innocent" are two VERY different things. I am almost certain that this cop will never even face trial, much less ever be found guilty. But a lack of evidence against him hardly means he is "innocent"  Guilty people get away with crimes every day. Personally I doubt that this cop had an evil intentions to do an innocent law abiding woman harm, but that doesn't mean he didn't have a "Barney Fife" moment and because of his bad judgment and actions a truly innocent woman is now needlessly dead.

You are entitled to come that judgment if you wish based on very limited facts. Maybe I'll join you in that assessment, when all the facts are uncovered.

 
As for the "court of public opinion", I never put too much stock in that, as the masses often are wrong and uninformed.  

 
Herd mentality is what make sheeple jump over the cliff, imo.

but, if we are going to be literal about this, a "Barney Fife" moment can absolutely be felonious, "Involuntary manslaughter" is most definitely a felony, and that potential felony charge gives the cop a very good reason to keep his mouth shut.

 
I've already gone on record that it's HIGHLY unlikely he will ever face charges, but let me also go on record saying it's just as unlikely that he will ever be a cop again either. Would you hire this guy?

My subject line wasn't nearly as clear as it should have been and I see how you took it the way you did, so that's on me.

 
The point that I was trying to make was that even if it is determined he didn't follow procedure to the letter,  or he didn't have all the training he should have, or whatever, that didn't necessarily make him a felon.  

 
Regardless of the facts, he will not be a cop again as so many previous cases of exemplary policing resulted in the cops firing. I think you would agree with me just how incredibly unfair that is, but it is what it is.

...Constitutionally Jack is correct, and it is probably inappropriate to try this action in the court of public opinion, however this shooting of an unarmed person standing next to a squad car in her pajamas has fed the fears of many citizens of Minneapolis & many other cities & created one more step in the erosion of trust for law enforcement personal. We must not ignore these actions & certainly nether should the police, it's their reputation on the line & it's about time that they get rid of the people that should not be peace officers. The only power we have is to keep talking about this kind of action.

in our country. You will not find those words anywhere in the Constitution and, in fact, they apply only to the jury in a criminal trial of the accused. LE, the prosecutors and the judge presume the opposite – and that is why a person accused of a crime is brought to court in handcuffs and kept in jail unless bail is granted.  

           As to the “court of public opinion,” you are certainly free to bury your head in the sand and repeat the “innocent until prove guilty” cliché, even though it does not apply.  When all the information you have indicates that we have a bad shooting, it is a little ridiculous to “presume” the officer is innocent, don’t you agree? Just say "I will withhold judgment until at least we see if the officer is charged - and it is just a matter of time.

        In this particular case, it is very difficult to imagine facts that would have led a reasonable police officer to draw and fire across his partner at a woman in pajamas who slapped the car, even if it did startle him. A vague fear of an ambush doesn’t do it. Maybe there was an accidental discharge – that is the only out I see for this guy.  But, unless and until we hear extraordinary new facts, I think it is entirely reasonable for Mr. Huck and even the almost always wrong Bigpapasan to presume guilt here.

In the Ferguson case, yes it was incredibly unfair. In some of the other cases, I breathe just a little bit easier knowing that person no longer has a badge and a gun. I will feel that exact way when Noor is hopefully stripped of his badge.

 
You suggest that "regardless of the facts" he will never be a cop again as if that's the biggest travesty here, I hope you can at least concede that "regardless of the facts" he will never face charges either.

and had the finger on the trigger, how come they would not have the body cams on if it could possibly be a violent domestic violence act?  A rational person would have the cams on with all the evidence they needed.

of course the chief will cover it up to cover his ass too.  They are not paid enough money or enough money spent on properly training.  

I have a business in a county where I happen to have excellent police.  They have helped me in many cases and they are my loyal customers and tell everybody about me.  But, also in my experience I lived in a town many years ago where I reported a gang rape that happened while I was intoxicated or possibly had some put in my drink.  They did not help me.  I was called to the station by the investigating officer and he arrested me!  After they had already had a female officer come in and take pictures of the bruises all over my body.  I was traumatized by the horror that I had been violated against my will, my personal body, without my consent.  And then get the injustice from the police that I reached out to help me!  I was treated horribly!  I was put in back of the unmarked car and drove to the county jail where I was groped by smirking male officers and the investigator.  Some of the offenders later pleaded to felony violence and was given prison time.  ME?  I took that shit all the way to a jury trial with a lawyer that kicked that female DA's ass and tore that courtroom inside out of why I wasn't helped!!!! Taken to the hospital!! Nothing.  I was treated like garbage because I was intoxicated and attractive.  The judge was so damn mad at the DA that she was in and out of the courtroom crying all day.  The jury convened and came back with no guilty before I could even step outside the courthouse to smoke.

I told you all that to say, if anybody deserves to hate the police it is me!  Do I? nope.  I don't categorize a whole group of people.  And I have expectations that they are there to help me when I need them.  I happen to live and work in towns like that now.

And on another note of recent happenings in my world.  I am going to have to fire the first black male I have ever hired.  And I hate it so bad.  He is loyal to me as the day is long.  But he did something very, very so ignorant and said in front my customers, and one a a police officers ear shot.  "I hate all police, they are all corrupt"  Even though I am going to fire him and should have on the spot.  I will not categorize all young black males now.  Just like I don't judge all police officers by what one investigator did to me.  And I am so happy more college girls are coming forward today and reporting date rape because they are ashamed and intoxicated.  We now view intoxication is not clear consent.  Clear consent when drinking is, checking in frequently with your partner and asking questions like "you are enjoying yourself, right?"  We have come a long way from how I was treated like a criminal.  

You initially said the Ferguson shooting appeared to be a "bad shoot" and also stated that the OK police woman case appeared to be the same. Remember?

 
BOTH ended in acquittals, so you'll have to excuse me if I don't consider your horrific track record of predicting the outcome of these cases.

 
The jury in this case, IF he is charged, and he may very well not be, won't give a shit about your "imagination" of the facts. Her wearing "pajamas" wont matter. Him shooting across his partner will not matter. No clue why you would mention any of that nonsense as NONE of that goes to illegality.

 
Who is going to testify against him? The woman is dead, sadly. The driver's attorney has already stated he thinks its reasonable that both cops felt they were being ambushed so it doesn't sound like his partner will testify against him.

 
What evidence will the prosecution put up to make a jury ALL agree that this police officer committed a felony? They will have no hard evidence whatsoever. It will all be innuendo and speculation based.

 
This will be a case of an accidental shooting based on mistaken identity and I don't think a jury in the country will find this cop guilty.  

 
Sounds like TONS of reasonable doubt to me.

I had to break his little heart. lol

Dead women tell no tales, and neither do partners in blue. So as long as he keeps his mouth shut it's highly unlikely that he will ever face charges, but that hardly makes him innocent.

 
You used to argue that the cops have been "justified" in their actions, it's telling that your defense now only extends to "legality" and in this case even you seem to concede that it's more of a matter of lack of evidence to PROVE he was in the wrong rather than you claiming the cop was actually justified in his actions.

...Jack if you are addressing my posts on this shooting please show where I was inaccurate otherwise STFU and I never have been a cop hater,just someone that demands accountability .

That would be just as stupid as declaring him guilty now.

 
There hasn't been any charges filed and I don't know the details of Noor's story, the driver's story, the witnesses story, the timeline of the loud noise and the girl moving toward the car etc etc etc so "innocence" is impossible to determine now and may never be possible to achieve.  

 
I also never said the cop in the Castile case was "innocent." I would have no way of knowing as I couldn't see into the car. The jury found him not guilty and I think they had ample evidence to come to that conclusion.

 
Why you would try to compare how I argued other cases is mystifying. We are only 2 weeks or so into the investigation so far.  

 
You would have to compare what I was saying 2 weeks after the other cases you are referring or at the same level of evidence known in those cases.

"When all the information you have indicates a bad shooting?..." I am not quite sure what you refer to with "all." We seem to be scant on any verifiable proof one way or the other. I will be upfront and tell you I do not possess all the pertinent facts of this shooting but can anyone have them at this stage? You make it sound like there is a mountain of evidence against the police officer as I see very little as of this precise moment.  

I agree with Gambler on this one. With no camera footage to analyze, no witnesses to question and likely no confession, I am befuddled how the prosecution will make any rational case whatsoever to bring to a jury. Where is your case against the cop? Can you spell it out for me? What is the crime he committed? How would you know he possessed a "vague" fear of ambush? How will you prove any of it? I think the fact gathering may take weeks, if not months more, so making declarations about "good shoots" or "bad shoots" would be specious and dubious at best, especially in light of the fact that we are at a very early mark in the process.

I just don't think there is much more we are EVER going to know about this shooting.  

 
The victim is dead. The shooter is not talking, The driver is very unlikely to testify against his partner, even though his "defense" of his partner is tepid at best. There is no video or audio evidence to view, I just don't see a lot more information, except for further speculation of course, ever coming to light.

 
and here is where I agree with Jack, a "gut feeling" that the cop overreacted is not something you can base a criminal case on, the cop does have fifth amendment rights so unless "someone" has an attack of conscience and spills his guts, either the driver or the shooter, and that looks highly unlikely, this case is going nowhere.

 
Personally, I think the cop had a Barney Fife moment, but that's hardly relevant to the investigation. I would be surprised if Noor kept his badge, but again that too is not relevant to a criminal prosecution.

1. The police responded to a 911 call of a sexual assault – not a mass shooting
2. The shooting occurred in a low crime district
3. The victim was clad in pajamas
4. The victim slapped the back of the patrol car and then moved to the driver side window
5. The passenger side officer drew his gun and fired across the driver and killed the victim
6. No gun was found at the scene
7. There is zero information that the victim posed any danger to the officers
8. The non-shooting officer has given a statement – he did not claim that he thought the victim posed a danger or give any facts that would permit this inference. He did not claim the victim grabbed his gun. He did not claim the victim disregarded police instructions to put her hands up and then reached for something.
9. The shooting officer has refused to even give a statement claiming his Fifth Amendment Right against self incrimination
10. The police chief has described the shooting as unnecessary

So on the publicly available info, it is an  easy call – a bad shooting. There is zero info that the shooting officer feared for his life, or the life of others. There is zero info that a reasonable officer would have feared for his life or the life of others.

The defense can’t present exculpatory evidence if the officer refuses to testify. If this was an accidental discharge, only the officer can tell us that. So I expect an indictment and a prosecution based on what we know not.

Yes there is a “mountain of evidence against the officer” – he shot the woman and neither he nor his partner have claimed justification.  Even worse, it is hard to even speculate as to facts as to how the woman in pajames could reasaobnle be perceived to be a threat. No Jack, the atty’s vague claim of “ambush” in this low crime neighborhood goes nowhere.

 
Correct, we don’t have “all the pertinent facts” at this stage. But that is not what the post is about, is it? You lost focus when you opened that door. The post is about what conclusion can you reach on the publicly available info and whether at this time we should presume the guy is innocent as Jack chooses to do. No, on the publicly available info, there is probable cause to indict and, until new info changes things,  the  only reasonable conclusion is – a bad shooting.

I was hoping Marikod would have enlightened us on how the prosecution would proceed as he seems so sure a conviction is in the offing. I, like you, have my doubts. There just doesn't appear to be any real persuasive evidence to reach a verdict of wrong doing. Not sure about your "Barney Fife" comment as I am not up to date on all the police proper etiquette and procedures, so I must refrain from comment on that.

...I was beginning to think I was the only one posting on this board willing to draw the conclusion that this was a BAD shoot, your post puts that together very well.

No, not ALL the available facts point to a "bad shoot."

 
We'll get to that in a minute, as I see you disregarded any evidence to the contrary for it just didn't fit your narrative.

 
Points 1-6 are completely irrelevant as to the "bad shoot" argument. Had the victim been wearing jeans or a hoodie, you would have moved that fact into the "good shoot" column? Do you know how ridiculous you sound? Yes lets have the "Pajama Prosecution" argument. I cant wait.  

 
Now as to your other nonsense...the drivers attorney has said it was perfectly reasonable for the cops to think they were in an ambush situation. You may or may not agree with that assessment, but that destroys your silly "ALL the public info points to a bad shoot" mantra.

 
And if the officers did reasonably believe they were being ambushed, that would deal with points 7 & 8. Remember, she doesn't HAVE to pose an ACTUAL danger to them. The standard is did they reasonably believe she posed a severe threat to them at that exact moment as hindsight doesn't count. It is well within the scope of believability they did think she was a threat, especially when you factor in other facts, as I will get to.

 
When you get a chance, please provide the statement the driver made, and in full. To categorically state the driver did not claim X or Y is pure speculation and not shown by the facts.

 
Point 9 has nothing to do with the legality of the shoot.  

 
Point 10, is a meaningless statement by the chief again, re: legality. We all know in hindsight the shooting was "unnecessary." We didn't need the chief to tell us that. AGAIN, You know the standard and you cant view it in hindsight. You have to look through the lens of what the cops were facing at that exact moment of the shooting.  

 
In the Tamir Rice case, the shooting was "unnecessary" as well, as the cop shot a kid with a toy gun, and the police were acquitted.  

 
See a theme here, Mari?

 
Now what you may not know, is that dispatch stated there were shots fired near the cops in question. They then heard a loud noise (some have speculated that was a gun shot and others a fire cracker) and supposedly THAT is the precise moment the woman moved towards their vehicle.

 
So lets review the facts, and since you speculated, please allow me to do same:

1) We have the police called for a potential rape, meaning a weapon is likely to be in play in the cops minds.  
2) They are in very dark, back alley, late at night in very poor lighting conditions.  
3) They hear a report on their radio of gun fire near them.  
4) The cop then hears a loud noise that sounds like a gun shot in close proximity to their car.
5) A shadowy, adult sized figure moves swiftly and directly at the cops.
6) The cop in the passenger seat, now thinking the call was a possible set up for ambush or believes the rapist is making a bee line for them, makes a split second judgment to use self defense in order to put down the threat.
7) As BB linked to yesterday, there has been a huge upturn in the amount of cop ambushes and assassinations in recent years, which of course weighs on any cops mind and reasonably so.  

 
The facts can and will certainly change as more info is gathered, but this seems to me to be a mistaken identity shooting in the midst of reasonable self defense. It was a terrible confluence of coincidences and events, but thats what many times leads to accidental shootings.  

 
Without a witness or a video, and with the defense I think will be put in place, this case will wreak of reasonable doubt, making a conviction a virtual impossibility here. History tells us we don't place people, or cops, in jail for accidents.

 
These cases are a fortune to try and I think the DA here may decide not to pursue it as I don't think any jury will find this cop guilty of murder or any lesser felonious offense.

 
We know how this plays out. He will be fired and the family will be paid huge multi-million $ settlement. No conviction and no jail time.

but by night she roams West 51th street in her pajamas ruthlessly shooting police officers in their cars.

            My next screenplay. It is going to be a big hit and it just so happens I’m looking for investors, Jack. Just mail me a check…um certified please.

             1. Of course it makes a difference that the victim was wearing pajamas. If she had been wearing a suicide vest or a bulletproof jacket, that might lend itself to a reasonable fear in the officer’s mind. This is just a guess but I don’t think they teach at the police academy – watch out for perps in pajamas.

          2. I have not read that “dispatch stated there were shots fired near the cops in question.” I read only that there were some fireworks and this occurred long before the victim approached the car. Not publicly available info.

           3. You completely miscomprehend the significance of the police chief saying the shooting was unnecessary. He has seen all of the facts to date- not just the facts released to the public. And he did not say the shooting was justified, or an accidental discharge. That is how we know what Officer Harrity did not say in his statement.

           4. You completely miscomprehend the significance of pleading the Fifth. That his attys immediately advised him to do that tells me he has no “ I thought she had a gun” defense.  

5.  Your spin on the facts is basically “loud noise” and then a figure “moves directly at the cops.” No reasonable cop would fear for his life on such a flimsy sequence of events, pajamas or not. Your post is going straight to video –again.

What do you mean you don’t want to invest in my screenplay? Not realistic? I beg to differ.

When this guy is indicted I will expect an apology.

...You should learn a little about J.D. his hole purpose is to win the argument & he will twist what ever you say to favor his side of the argument, kind of like the "tar baby" in the old fable the more you engage him the more you get stuck in the tar.

and while I agree with many of his points, he closes on a loser. Noor is NOT going to be indicted. My personal opinion about his guilt or innocence has no bearing on this, there is simply no evidence to indict.  

 
Mari has a very bad habit of predicting what he "wants" to happen, rather than what is likely to happen. Just look at what he predicted for Rick Perry as a prime example of how out of touch he is with the real world.  

 
Now JD is the exact opposite story, where it comes to cops at least. Jack seems to be conflating a lack of evidence to PROVE the cop did anything criminal with the cop actually being innocent of any wrongdoing. Of course Jack is predisposed to believe all cops are justified in their actions while Mari is predisposed to believing all cops are guilty.

 
Let me ask you, do you REALLY agree with Mari that this cop is going to be indicted? If you do, I have a lovely bridge you might be interested in.

END OF MESSAGE

..bridge offer GaG but I already have one in Brooklyn, I'm not an attorney nor do I play one on TV but I recognize the sad set of events that most likely caused this tragic death, & other apparently unnecessary police shootings in our country .I am very much pro law enforcement & as much as I don't like guns they are here & we have to learn to live with them & that includes our police officers. In advanced society's around the world America ranks by far the worst for firearm deaths per person, unless we as a country continue to talk about these tragic events the status-quo will continue, & maybe that is what some people want, NOT ME !

END OF MESSAGE

How do you know that the cops would even know what she was wearing until AFTER she was shot and they were performing CPR on her? Good grief, that is an ignorant point by you.

 
Again, Mari, it was MIDNIGHT. In a BACK alley. It tends to be very dark in these cases. Do you really think in the possible 2 or 3 seconds from the time the cop saw "her", in the dark, he could possibly determine what she was wearing and that would somehow affect his decision to shoot? Good God bro, that is either really stupid or just ignorant of what cops face IRL and how much time they have to react.

 
This wasn't some open field, in broad daylight, where the cops could eye ball her up at 100 yards. More then likely they had a split second, again, IN THE DARK. How in the world they could determine she was was wearing pajamas, let alone a suicide vest or bullet proof jacket is really one of the dumbest things I have ever seen you post here, and I am one of your admirers! lol

 
Point two, see my attached.

 
Point three, there just isn't enough facts to know what the chief meant as the only word you ascribe to him was him saying "unnecessary" so you have no idea in what context he made the statement. You don't provide anything more then him making  a one word comment. The DA will give that no weight whatsoever, as you well know.

 
Point 4 does not preclude a defense of him possibly believing she was armed. They found her cell phone by her side, and AGAIN, it was pitch dark. It is certainly possible the phone gave off a gleam of light or he may have been able to manage to see she was clutching something in the few seconds he has to size up the situation.

 
We are both spinning as that is what we do at this stage with so much not in evidence. I, at least, am spinning them FOR a person not even accused of anything as yet while you have a cop already convicted with no witnesses, no video and no confession.

 
You will get a mea culpa from me if there is a CONVICTION, as we both know a ham sandwich can get an indictment.  

 
How many indictments have we seen lately, when after all the facts come to light, go up and disappear like a fart in the wind when the jury hears both sides? Pretty much all of them bro.

But yes, this was a case of a "sad set of events that most likely caused this tragic death." So we agree there.

 
But because that is most likely true, that doesn't mean a felony was committed. Most accidental killings don't end with a jail term.

 
People are upset that an innocent women was killed. I get it. Seems to me the peeps who are against the cop shootings in general  want the law and standard changed and people have that right to push for that change, if they so choose.

 
I think that would make these situations all the worse, but that is my take. People want a scape goat. They want someone held accountable.  

 
Juries tend to be a bit more dispassionate and follow the law and place themselves in the cops shoes, as they are instructed to do. So maybe yours, and others, have problems with the law and not necessarily the actions of any specific PO.

The lack of evidence, that both you and I cite, go towards a very unlikely conviction. That goes to the cop being "not guilty" but certainly not necessarily "innocent." I have yet to comment on the cops "innocence."  

 
And let me remind you I never spoke of the cops "innocence" in the Castile shooting. Not knowing what the cop actually saw in that case, I am unable to state he was innocent.

 
Now, that is totally separate from me thinking the cop in this case engaged in any "wrongdoing." I simply don't have anywhere near enough info to come to a conclusion on the latter.

 
I may get there, I may not. I am open on the possibility though.

 
But I do seem to be one of the very few who wont make up my mind on that point until I hear the defense in full and all the prosecutions presented facts, if there is even going to be a prosecution.

1. Grand jury indictments of police officers for shootings are in fact RARE (for example Ferguson and Eric Garner) as compared to grand jury indictments for other felonies, so your use of the “ham sandwich” cliché is unavailing. And not only are they rare, they are procedurally different from other grand juries. They last much longer, more witnesses testify, and the officer himself usually testifies if he thinks he has a defense. So if this guy is indicted as I predict it IS a big deal.

          2. Hoisted on your own petard- If it was too dark for the officer to see the victim was clad in pajamas before he opened fire, then he could have not seen her reach for a weapon either. He had to perceive danger before he could open fire so you can’t cherry pick what he might have seen. She was standing right by the car window and the dash board lights alone would be nugh to see what she was wearing. If he could see well enough to mistake the cell phone for a weapon, he could see her pajamas.  And there is no info that he thought she had a weapon.  

          3. The police chief before her resignation said defended Noor’s training but criticized Noor’s actions as “going against his training”:

In her first public remarks since the death of Justine Damond, a 40-year-old life coach and bride-to-be, Harteau defended Officer Mohamed Noor’s training but criticized his actions.
“The actions in question go against who we are in the department, how we train and the expectations we have for our officers,” Harteau said. “These were the actions and judgment of one individual.”
She added: “This did not have to happen. Justine did not have to die.”

There is your context. Clearly, she believes it was a bad shooting. If he reasonably perceived a danger and fired, his actions would be consistent with his training. Is there any other way to interpret what she said?  

         4. I don’t blame you for moving the goal post to a “conviction” but that is not the topic of my posts. The posts address solely the conclusion that should be reached on the info publicly available at this time – and that conclusion is that it was bad shooting.

       5. But the single biggest failing of your argument is you still can’t identify a danger that he could have perceived based on public info.  If the cops could open fire any time they heard a loud noise and saw a person approach their car, we’d have shootings every day. Again , they can’t open fire just bc “I thought it might be an ambush.” Again, no info says he thought the cell phone was a gun.

I’ll take that apology now.

I merely said it was "possible" he thought she was clutching something or that it may have given off some kind of light, Unlike you, who is arguing he would def have been able to tell what she was wearing.

 
Pajamas can look like any other bit of clothing in the dark. One can only tell they are pajamas by looking at style, size, texture of fabric, etc i.e. things that are VERY difficult to determine in mere seconds and once again, IN THE DARK.

 
Btw the indictment will not be decided by a GJ. It is solely up to one man, the DA. That person can indict out of pressure and NOT because it was a bad shoot so the ham sandwich argument still holds.

 
Now, let me educate you about what the chief said, who was fired btw, so stop with this "resigned" nonsense.  

 
The chief was speaking in VERY vague generalities and notice she doesn't mention anything in specific. Gee, why is that? Is it bc she doesn't know why and what happened and decided to scape goat?  Hmmmm.....

 
Did you notice she through him under the bus with the "it cant be the training's" fault lol. Also notice she didn't comment on two rookies being paired together and please note she never said it was a bad shoot. Wanna know why? SHE DOESN'T KNOW. SHE COULDNT KNOW. SHE WASN'T THERE. None of that will mean bupkis to a jury anyway.

 
Now, it is NOT illegal to go against police procedure/policy in the midst of self defense. The cops are given a wide latitude as to what actions they can take to save their life and that of their partner. You know damn well know this to be true.

 
Many have criticized Noor for shooting through the driver side window. That is not procedure and would certainly be frowned upon...UNLESS he felt that was the only response to the threat he perceived.  

 
The jury will not give a shit about that, or any other policy he broke if they feel he was acting reasonably in his self defense, and that is the overwhelming conclusion the jury's come to in these cases, as we all have seen.

 
There was no moving of any goal post as I have stressed that there will not be a conviction. It is GaG who doesn't think there will even be an indictment. I HAVE said, no indictment is a possibility.

 
Re: point 5, I have already laid out the danger as the confluence of events could lead to that danger, when you consider the perceived gun fire, a very likely armed perp in the immediate vicinity and a suspicious person moving right at them. I know you don't like the info in the public pointing to that danger but that is quite different then there not being any.

 
And again, your track record for predicting these things has been terrible.

...Do not engage the TAR BABY.

“Pajamas can look like any other bit of clothing in the dark. One can only tell they are pajamas by looking at style, size, texture of fabric, etc i.e. things that are VERY difficult to determine in mere seconds and once again, IN THE DARK.”

          You can “only tell” pajamas by looking at the …style? LOL. I had no idea. Sorry I don’t wear them myself. I am out my depth here and I will concede the pajamas argument to you.

           Where did you get that the DA will not present to a grand jury? I have not read that. Very unsual to make that decision before the evidence is gathered. But if the DA indicts himself I would suggest that means the evidence is not even close.

Stay away from "conviction." I rarely if ever predict convictions since they turn on so many factors. I predict indictment and trial and that is going to happen here absent extraordinary new evidence.

Unwinnable cases that bring down their conviction rates is what they hate.

 
and even though everything about this case screams "Barney Fife" to me, unless more evidence comes out (highly unlikely) this case is unwinnable and without BLM and the MSM howling for the cops head on a spike, I just don't see the DA pushing to indict.

 
If this does go to trial, it will be the shortest trial in history as there is virtually no evidence to be presented. Matthew Harrity, the driver is unlikely to change his story and effectively end his career by throwing his partner under the bus, Noor himself is never going to say a word, and without any eyewitnesses or video/audio tapes to present to the jury I just don't see anyway to persuade a jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Noor is guilty of any crime.

...Naaa I would guess just NCNS like most guys.

Link states the decision maker is a "county attorney."  

 
Odd description, frankly.