Minn police shooting....

This forum is for discussion of politics, diplomacy, law, and justice
User avatar
Jered
Posts: 7859
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:30 am

Re: Minn police shooting....

Post by Jered »

Here's a press release from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety.
BCA agents interviewed Officer Harrity earlier today. Officer Noor has declined to be interviewed by BCA agents at this time. Officer Noor’s attorney did not provide clarification on when, if ever, an interview would be possible.
Hopefully, that's grounds for them to fire him. This is kind of an arcane bit of legal knowledge, but the agency can terminate him if he won't cooperate with the investigation, but, if they do that, they can't use evidence they get from that investigation in a criminal case because of the 5th Amendment.
Officer Matthew Harrity has been an officer with the Minneapolis Police Department for one year.
Officer Mohamed Noor has been an officer with the Minneapolis Police Department for 21 months.
There's the department's first mistake. Those two guys are still basically rookies. They should have had each of them partnered with someone who actually had experience. That's a failure of the police department.
As they reached West 51st Street, Officer Harrity indicated that he was startled by a loud sound near the squad.
So, this guy heard a noise.
Immediately afterward Ruszczyk approached the driver’s side window of the squad.
Then the woman shows up.
Harrity indicated that Officer Noor discharged his weapon, striking Ruszczyk through the open driver’s side window.
It sounds like the police version of events is that the two officers heard a loud noise. Then the woman approached the window of the squad car. When the woman appeared, Noor shot her. Seriously, WTF. How the fuck did these people not figure out that this dude wasn't suitable to be a cop because he jumped to some really stupid conclusions here. 1) That "loud noise" represented some sort of lethal threat directed at the officers. 2) The woman who appeared at the window was the source of the noise. 3) The woman at the window represented a continuing lethal threat.

Hypothetically, if a police officer responds to a call about a man with a gun, who is shooting it in the air and then when the police show up, puts it down, the police don't just get to shoot him because he fired a gun.

I can't even understand this shooting. Seriously. Some dude panics at a loud noise, and shoots the closest person that isn't wearing a uniform. WTF? I can understand being startled at a loud noise, but startled to the point of shooting the closest person that isn't dressed like you?
The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
User avatar
skb12172
Posts: 7310
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:45 am

Re: Minn police shooting....

Post by skb12172 »

This stupid shit is going on regularly all...over...the...country. That is even more amazing to me.
There must be an end to this intimidation by those who come to this great country, but reject its culture.
User avatar
Netpackrat
Posts: 13983
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:04 pm

Re: Minn police shooting....

Post by Netpackrat »

A public defender of my acquaintance once said that he is very careful to observe the speed limit and all traffic laws, because any contact with the police is an opportunity to get killed.
Cognosce teipsum et disce pati

"People come and go in our lives, especially the online ones. Some leave a fond memory, and some a bad taste." -Aesop
Langenator
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: Minn police shooting....

Post by Langenator »

slowpoke wrote:The fact they didn't turn on their body cams sure seems to give a premeditated feel to this to me.
As a cop (albeit with less experience that either of the two involved here) what it indicates to me is that they weren't expecting contact with anyone, including probably the reporting party (RP). That may be a communication failure between Dispatch and the officers - if the RP wanted to contact the responding officer(s) directly, Dispatch should have informed the officers, and if Dispatch failed to do so, the officers should have asked. Of course, the RP may have seen the squad car and decided sua sponte to go talk to them.

But if they weren't expecting contact, there's no reasons for the body cam to be on, and one big reason for it to be off - battery life. Body cams have limited battery life. The ones my department uses are good for 2-3 hours of actual recording time, and even less than that in low light conditions (which activates the low-light/night vision mode, which includes active IR lighting and thus drains the battery that much faster. And the light level in an above-ground parking structure at high noon is low enough to send it into night mode.) Even just leaving the camera On, but not actively recording, they won't last a whole (12 hour) shift. So if you don't want your camera running out of juice at 0230 in the middle of giving some drunk driver the SFSTs, means the body cam is fully powered off unless you anticipate using it.

Also, most body cams, unlike vehicle cameras, don't record on continuous loop, for the reason I stated above - battery life. Most vehicle cameras do record on a continuous loop, but don't 'save' the recordings unless they're marked as an 'event'. This can happen by any one of a number of pre-set actions - pressing the Record button, activating the emergency lights, airbag deployment, etc. This usually includes a user-configurable block of time BEFORE the activating action. (My department uses a 30 second block.) Recordings not marked as an 'event' will eventually be overwritten by new recordings. How long it takes for this to happen depends on how much the car is used, and how much free space there is on the HD. Until it is overwritten, many set ups allow users and/or supervisors to go back and 'record after the fact' - marking a section of recording time as an 'event'. If the MPD's car systems have this feature, I expect it would be used immediately in a case such as this one, although it might not tell much, unless a) the internal car microphone was active at the time and/or b) MPD bought the system with a camera that records the driver/passenger (typical camera set up is just a front camera and one for the prisoner cage in the back seat.)

That said, if I were responding to this call (Suspicious Activity/possible assault) I would have powered up my body cam when I got close if I expected to contact the RP (because conversations with RPs go on camera, too). If not, I'd probably power up when I got out of the car, but not start recording unless I actually encountered someone. If I saw someone I wanted to talk to before I got out of the car, I'd probably activate the vehicle camera before I got out, because redundant recording is a Good Thing, and even if I'm out of the camera's field of view, I still get audio.

My big question is why in the heck did Officer Noor have his pistol out, inside the car? About the only reason I can think of to have one's service weapon out of the holster while still inside the car is if the officer is being actively attacked while still inside the vehicle. Other than that, you wait to draw until you're out of the vehicle, because trying to get out of the car with one hand full of gun isn't exactly the safest thing. Moreso if you're in the passenger seat and (presumably) right handed - because your gun hand is the one best positioned to open the door in the first place.

Pretty much the only time anyone in my department draws a weapon without a visible threat is when we're clearing a building in response to an Intrusion Alarm.
Fortuna Fortis Paratus
User avatar
Weetabix
Posts: 6106
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:04 pm

Re: Minn police shooting....

Post by Weetabix »

Nice write up.
Note to self: start reading sig lines. They're actually quite amusing. :D
User avatar
Termite
Posts: 9003
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:32 am

Re: Minn police shooting....

Post by Termite »

Tell ya what..... :x

If my cop partner shot ACROSS MY BODY while I'm in the driver's seat, he better have a damn good OBVIOUS reason for it.

I can only imagine how long it was before the cop driving could hear again...... :roll:
"Life is a bitch. Shit happens. Adapt, improvise, and overcome. Acknowledge it, and move on."
Greg
Posts: 8486
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:15 pm

Re: Minn police shooting....

Post by Greg »

Jericho941 wrote:Image
That's been making the rounds. Good one. :lol:
Maybe we're just jaded, but your villainy is not particularly impressive. -Ennesby

If you know what you're doing, you're not learning anything. -Unknown
Sanity is the process by which you continually adjust your beliefs so they are predictively sound. -esr
User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 4731
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: Minn police shooting....

Post by Vonz90 »

When the BCA said July 18 that Noor shot from the squad car and Damond was unarmed, Harteau said she realized the full weight of the situation, because Noor’s partner, Officer Matthew Harrity, offered no defense of the shooting. “It was clear to me that he didn’t know why this happened,” Harteau said.
Some new info: http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis- ... 449298193/
Post Reply