MN - Justine Damond, 40, fatally shot by Minneapolis LE, 15 July 2017 #3

[PrairieWind]

Hacker told the court Wednesday that being startled doesn't justify deadly force, and that an officer must first have to identify an actual threat.

"The most reasonable force in this situation would have been no force at all," he said.

Expert raps Noor's decision to fire; Ruszczyk 'did nothing wrong'

And that makes sense. Just because you are afraid of an ambush doesn't allow you to just start shooting at movement and noise. There could be victims or bystanders/children in the area. There is no justification.

 

[Jax49]

Use-of-force expert: No force, not even Taser, justified in Noor's fatal encounter with Damond

Even if he was startled by a loud noise, the Minneapolis police officer who fatally shot Justine Ruszczyk Damond two summers ago would not have been justified in using a Taser or pepper spray — much less his gun — a use-of-force expert testified on Wednesday.

 

[they'll get you]

Actually I like blatant better.

Blatant was the word that popped into my mind, but overt is even better.

I have an even better word but I’d get time out.

 

[Jax49]

I'm afraid we'll be disappointed when the verdict is announced, so I'm trying to tamp down my expectations.

Actually, who am I kidding - if Noor walks I'm going to be irate.

 

[they'll get you]

The Minneapolis police officer who shot dead Australian Justine Ruszczyk Damond should not have used any force - even pepper spray or a taser, let alone a gun - when she approached his police car, an expert witness has testified in court.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-...-to-shoot-justine-damond-20190425-p51h0d.html

 

[Via Marple]

Hacker told the court Wednesday that being startled doesn't justify deadly force, and that an officer must first have to identify an actual threat.

"The most reasonable force in this situation would have been no force at all," he said.

Expert raps Noor's decision to fire; Ruszczyk 'did nothing wrong'

I'm afraid we'll be disappointed when the verdict is announced, so I'm trying to tamp down my expectations.

Actually, who am I kidding - if Noor walks I'm going to be irate.

The first quote from Rocco has a link with the following. No wonder our American sleuthers are pessimistic...

Defense attorneys also plan to introduce their own witness on the appropriate use of force, Emanuel Kapelsohn, who also testified for the defense at the 2017 trial of former St. Anthony police officer Jeronimo Yanez in the killing of motorist Philando Castile. Yanez was acquitted.

Let's see how this one will justify it for defence

 

[PrairieWind]

I am very eager to see how the defense proceeds on this.

 

[Rocco]

Noor trial: Noor may testify Thursday

 

[mickey2942]

I am very eager to see how the defense proceeds on this.

I doubt Noor will take the stand. This case is interesting to follow, because our other "favorite" Amber Guyger, will be in September.

 

[wary]

Noor trial: Noor may testify Thursday

“In court on Thursday, Noor's defense attorney asked that their expert witness be allowed to be present during Noor's testimony, indicating Noor would speak”

I’d think that it’d be very difficult to claim self-defense without the defendant testifying—not without dramatic evidence that there was an actual attack, certainly.

 

[Rocco]

The first quote from Rocco has a link with the following. No wonder our American sleuthers are pessimistic...



Let's see how this one will justify it for defence

This case looks a lot different to me. Yanez was interacting with Castile. He told him not to move/reach for anything. He knew who he was shooting. In this case, Noor had no idea who he was shooting. It could have been a lost 10 year old child who saw a police car and approached it for help. He had no interaction whatsoever with Justine. She didn't move when told not to move. She didn't reach for anything. Nothing.

I think he's toast.

 

[Rocco]

And another thing-----if Noor takes the stand and tells the jury the slap on the car story, they're really going to dislike him. It's one thing to hear testimony that it happened from witnesses (because we now know that story was never told until 3 days later), and another thing to have the accused look at the jury and lie to their faces. If I was on the jury and he did that, the artist sketching images could capture me rolling my eyes.

ETA: And what's he going to say when cross examined and asked why he, nor anyone else, ever said anything about a slap on the car until 3 days later?

 

[PrairieWind]

“In court on Thursday, Noor's defense attorney asked that their expert witness be allowed to be present during Noor's testimony, indicating Noor would speak”

I’d think that it’d be very difficult to claim self-defense without the defendant testifying—not without dramatic evidence that there was an actual attack, certainly.

Its very difficult to use a "self defense" type of defense without the defendant taking the stand. So I think he will. But the cross examination will be brutal. He will have to answer why he didn't cooperate with the investigation.

 

[Rocco]

Noor breaks silence, takes the stand at his trial

On Thursday, however, Plunkett was reprimanded by Judge Kathryn Quaintance once again for getting into ambushes of police officers that happened.

"There's no indication of an ambush here," Quaintance said. Plunkett argued that was the perception that night of Noor's partner, officer Matthew Harrity, and that it plays into Noor's state of mind that night.

More reporting to come.

 

[PrairieWind]

Noor breaks silence, takes the stand at his trial

On Thursday, however, Plunkett was reprimanded by Judge Kathryn Quaintance once again for getting into ambushes of police officers that happened.

"There's no indication of an ambush here," Quaintance said. Plunkett argued that was the perception that night of Noor's partner, officer Matthew Harrity, and that it plays into Noor's state of mind that night.

More reporting to come.

From the link above:
"Noor brought up a time at training when he was hit by a paintball. "The most important takeaway for me is actions are better than reactions," he said."
I don't think this comment helps him at all. He got hit by a paintball, and now it seems to have made him trigger happy. Action vs Reaction. But a police officer HAS to be reactive for the very reason that he doesn't know what the situation is.

 

[Rocco]

Noor said he saw fear in Harrity's eyes and saw that Harrity was trying to pull his gun but was having difficulty.

He described putting his left arm over Harrity's chest, and seeing a woman in a pink shirt with blond hair outside Harrity's driver's side window raising her right arm.

"I fired one shot," Noor said. "My intent was to stop the threat."

When he realized he had shot an innocent woman, Noor said, "I felt like my whole world came crashing down."

"I couldn't breathe," Noor said. "I felt great pain."

Prosecutor Amy Sweasy attacked Noor in cross-examination, noting that Noor didn't see Damond's hands or a weapon.

"You meant to shoot the woman to stop the threat?" she asked. "You knew you were shooting a person?"

"Yes ma'am," he answered.

Ex-cop: Saw woman at window, fired 'to stop threat'

I don't remember Harrity testifying that he was having trouble getting his gun out of the holster.
He said he saw the fear in Harrity's eyes---yet he didn't see that Justine didn't have a weapon? He saw a pink shirt. He saw blonde hair. But he didn't see a weapon and shot anyway?
He said his intent was to stop the threat. What threat? She didn't have a weapon.

 

[Rocco]

Wouldn't he have been better off testifying that he saw a shadowy figure at the window and shot, rather than saying he saw a woman, he saw she had on a pink shirt, and he saw that she had blonde hair. That's a lot of things to notice, and yet not notice she didn't have a weapon.

 

[mickey2942]

I was just in the car with my husband, I couldn't see his eyes, we are not looking at each other, we are looking forward, or if he heard something, both he and Noor would both be facing left, he would be seeing the back of his partners head.

 

[Jax49]

I was just in the car with my husband, I couldn't see his eyes, we are not looking at each other, we are looking forward, or if he heard something, both he and Noor would both be facing left, he would be seeing the back of his partners head.

Just thinking I hope there are logical people on the jury. So many holes in his story. moo

 

[mickey2942]

Just thinking I hope there are logical people on the jury. So many holes in his story. moo

Unless, Harrity and Noor were facing each other, in the car, looking deeply into each other's eyes, but it still doesn't work, because in this scenario, if he had seen "fear" in his partner's eyes, Noor would have turned around and shot. Opposite of what occurred.