TexasCHLforum.com

All these weeks and months later, the DA up there has decided he needs more time.

December 28, 2017 - MINNEAPOLIS
A Minnesota prosecutor said Thursday that he needs more time to decide whether to charge a police officer who fatally shot an Australian woman after she called 911 for help. Officer Noor has not spoken publicly about the case and has declined to speak with state investigators.

What's the hold up you ask? Hmm - Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman had promised a charging decision by year's end. But on Thursday, he said his office was "getting more information and evidence, and additional investigation must be completed."

"The investigation and review of the case will not be rushed," he said in a statement.

Then we see this paragraph - Freeman was captured on video two weeks ago at a holiday reception saying investigators hadn't brought him enough evidence to warrant charging the officer. On Thursday, he set no new timetable for a charging decision but said he had spoken with Damond's family to inform them of the delay.

Gee, don't ya think the guy who made the kill shot should answer up? Tell his side of the story? The article claims he's still an officer so that tells me he's being paid. Come to America, shoot and kill an Australian woman, get paid a salary. Is that in the recruiting brochures?

If the officer fails to make any sort of statement, don't have have to assume manslaughter at the very least? They know he shot the lady. I would not think they could just assume it was a justified shoot without evidence to show that.

Bet you’d be treated differently in the court of “law”.

baseballguy2001 wrote:Gee, don't ya think the guy who made the kill shot should answer up? Tell his side of the story?

I think he should, but I always advise everyone to not talk to the police. He has the right to not answer any questions in a criminal investigation, just like any other suspect. I am wondering if the department got anything from him for an internal investigation. They can order a statement and force it, but it cannot be used against him in a criminal case (Garrity v. New Mexico I think).

And I would suggest that they proceed with their internal discipline anyway. Without knowing everything about the case, I would suggest that it certainly appears unjustified. If he tells a story which justifies it, then their investigation should be completed and the story made public (depends on state laws if it ever has to be or not). And if he doesn't justify it, then he should be fired, without regard tot he criminal investigation.

And the DA should be able to get an indictment based on what has been released tot he papers, especially if the officer has not produced anything to contradict the public material.

srothstein wrote:

baseballguy2001 wrote:Gee, don't ya think the guy who made the kill shot should answer up? Tell his side of the story?

I think he should, but I always advise everyone to not talk to the police. He has the right to not answer any questions in a criminal investigation, just like any other suspect. I am wondering if the department got anything from him for an internal investigation. They can order a statement and force it, but it cannot be used against him in a criminal case (Garrity v. New Mexico I think).

And I would suggest that they proceed with their internal discipline anyway. Without knowing everything about the case, I would suggest that it certainly appears unjustified. If he tells a story which justifies it, then their investigation should be completed and the story made public (depends on state laws if it ever has to be or not). And if he doesn't justify it, then he should be fired, without regard tot he criminal investigation.

And the DA should be able to get an indictment based on what has been released tot he papers, especially if the officer has not produced anything to contradict the public material.

I agree with most of what you just posted. I still have a major problem with the handling of the incident from the start. If it had been a citizen that shot an innocent woman by mistake because he was startled--or just felt threatened--or because he mistook a cell phone for a gun--or because it was dark and he was "jumpy" because some officers had recently been shot sitting in their car (that one is really a stretch since he was "threatened" by a women in pajamas approaching two armed officers in a marked police car after she had called for their help)--the citizen would have immediately been arrested and taken to jail to await an arraignment, hopefully within 24 hours, where he would have been charged with something and either have been released on PR or had to make bail to be released pending the outcome of the investigation. The officer never faced any of that. He has been placed on paid leave and has refused to make a statement for 5 months. How long could it possibly take to determine the facts of this case? What happened is not in question--merely was there enough justification for him to have shot her under the circumstances. I cannot comprehend a civilian in the same circumstances where the investigation would not have been concluded within a few weeks at most. This has just been stalled and allowed to drag on for 5 months in hopes that it will just fall off the radar and I find that unconscionable.

The family needs to file a wrongful death suit against the department and have the records from the investigation subpeonaed!

MechAg94 wrote:If the officer fails to make any sort of statement, don't have have to assume manslaughter at the very least? They know he shot the lady. I would not think they could just assume it was a justified shoot without evidence to show that.

I'd have to look at MN law but at a minimum there should be a charge of negligent homicide.

Considering what he did it's a miracle he didn't leave his partner blind and deaf as well.

The man should never be allowed to handle another firearm much less ever work another day as a cop and he should certainly be spending some time in prison.

srothstein wrote:

baseballguy2001 wrote:Gee, don't ya think the guy who made the kill shot should answer up? Tell his side of the story?

I think he should, but I always advise everyone to not talk to the police. He has the right to not answer any questions in a criminal investigation, just like any other suspect. I am wondering if the department got anything from him for an internal investigation. They can order a statement and force it, but it cannot be used against him in a criminal case (Garrity v. New Mexico I think).

And I would suggest that they proceed with their internal discipline anyway. Without knowing everything about the case, I would suggest that it certainly appears unjustified. If he tells a story which justifies it, then their investigation should be completed and the story made public (depends on state laws if it ever has to be or not). And if he doesn't justify it, then he should be fired, without regard tot he criminal investigation.

And the DA should be able to get an indictment based on what has been released tot he papers, especially if the officer has not produced anything to contradict the public material.

I'd sincerely like to hear the statements made by his partner, recorded at the scene at the time of the shooting, to his supervisors following, and to the DA.

This incident has been a huge embarrassment for the department, the city, the the prosecutor's office and the state who I believe have jurisdiction over the criminal investigation.

I sincerely believe the hope is to drag it out as long as possible so that it is pretty well forgotten before it's ever resolved.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/20/of ... nding.html

The Minneapolis police officer who fatally shot an Australian woman in July was charged with murder Tuesday after he turned himself in when a warrant was issued for his arrest.

Officer Mohamed Noor turned himself in on Tuesday in connection to the 2017 death of Justine Ruszczyk Damond. his attorney confirmed.

Good to see MN step up and prosecute.
However, I don't want him spending the next 10 to 20 years living off the taxpayers while in US prison. Strip him of US citizenship and send him back to Somalia.

Flightmare wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/20/of ... nding.html

The Minneapolis police officer who fatally shot an Australian woman in July was charged with murder Tuesday after he turned himself in when a warrant was issued for his arrest.

Officer Mohamed Noor turned himself in on Tuesday in connection to the 2017 death of Justine Ruszczyk Damond. his attorney confirmed.

You beat me to it! https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/us/m ... amond.html

bblhd672 wrote:Good to see MN step up and prosecute.
However, I don't want him spending the next 10 to 20 years living off the taxpayers while in US prison. Strip him of US citizenship and send him back to Somalia.

Yessir, works for me. This was disturbing when I parsed the various news reports.

The DA stated that he would have been able to bring charges sooner, but many of the officers they asked to make statements refused to cooperate with them. He said in his 18 years as a prosecutor he had never encountered police officers who were not suspects that "refused to do their duty and come talk to us."

talltex wrote:The DA stated that he would have been able to bring charges sooner, but many of the officers they asked to make statements refused to cooperate with them. He said in his 18 years as a prosecutor he had never encountered police officers who were not suspects that "refused to do their duty and come talk to us."

The brotherhood.

mojo84 wrote:

talltex wrote:The DA stated that he would have been able to bring charges sooner, but many of the officers they asked to make statements refused to cooperate with them. He said in his 18 years as a prosecutor he had never encountered police officers who were not suspects that "refused to do their duty and come talk to us."

The brotherhood.

Needs to.be some obstruction of justice charges filed.