Posted on 03/20/2018 11:53:35 AM PDT by GrandJediMasterYoda
Edited on 03/20/2018 12:38:23 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The Minnesota cop who shot and killed an Australian bride-to-be was charged with murder and manslaughter, according to a report Tuesday.
Officer Mohamed Noor, 31
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Well, it is now thanks to your gif.
I’m confused. How can it be both?
If they don’t get him on one, they’ll get him on the other.
Charged, not convicted. They charged the cop who shot Castile with the same kind of charges and he was acquitted. No reason to believe this guy won't walk as well.
Just because the partner isn’t talking publicly does not mean he is covering for this a$$hat. It is more than possible that the partner is talking to the investigators and will be a witness for the prosecution. There are several reasons he might not be talking to the media that have nothing to do with a cover up.
diversity has a play in this...without diversity, this young Australian would be alive..
Yeah. You’re probably right. I’ll abandon all hope that justice will be served.
It seldom is when the shooter is a cop and the victim is a civilian. They are almost never charged to begin with, and when charged are almost never convicted. That's just the way it is in this day and age.
Ping me with the outcome.
I’ll be in my bunker cleaning my weapons and packing shells. ;)
He is likely overcharged so that jury probably will not convict him and if it does it will be overturned on appeal. Then he will sue the city and probably collect. Voluntary manslaughter or at most, 2nd degree.
Oh stop it with this anti-cop stuff. I have LEO officer family, and believe me, they are very careful with everything and hate brutal cops. But most of the time, it is the cop-assaulters who are let off (such as the recent paroling in NYC of a cop killer who had lured two officers to the site with a 911 call).
The police are terrified of firing a shot, especially if the person appears to be in a “protected class.” However, in this case, it was a “minority” cop who killed a person who clearly was no threat, and I think he did it because of his background and because he’d been hired as affirmative action. He already had a number of complaints against him, but the MPS police didn’t dare fire him because of the pressure that would be put on them.
Overcharging for murder was IMHO the pro-immigrant California AG strategy for the Steinle case. They didn’t prove the intent needed for the murder charge, and didn’t provide enough information relevant for a manslaughter conviction. I think this was on purpose.
It was negligent homicide, or manslaughter, with the aggravating circumstance of an illegally possessed weapon, let alone illegal presence in the USA. The guy probably didn’t intend to shoot Kate, and had an accidental discharge as claimed. He probably was shooting at sea lions in the dark—a near capital offense for you or I—and had a negligent discharge which bounced off the pier (that was the bullet path) and accidentally killed Kate.
If it were me or you... ten to fifteen years, restitution to the survivors of all we had, and probation forever. The prosecution threw the case. After I saw the prosecuting and defense attorney interviews on TV, I had a very strong sense that they may have colluded to achieve the trial result.
Could that happen in this case? I don’t know the jury pool or the politics in Minnesota well enough to hazard a decent guess. But, California’s Steinle case provides a template on how to achieve an innocent result.
Skinnys are subhuman retards.
I was extrapolating a bit from Steinle.
I know. I was riffing on the same theme.
Then you of all people should be dead set against a police officer who, through panic or carelessness or incompetence, shoots and kills a person when there was no threat to their safety or the safety of others. And should be just as disgusted when the system works to make sure they walk.
The police are terrified of firing a shot, especially if the person appears to be in a “protected class.”
If they're terrified of doing their job properly then maybe they should find another line of work? And I would point out that a whole lot of "protected class" people have been shot by police lately.
However, in this case, it was a “minority” cop who killed a person who clearly was no threat, and I think he did it because of his background and because he’d been hired as affirmative action.
And if he'd been a white, Christian cop of Norwegian extract would you be feeding me the line about how cops are careful with everything and there had to be a reason why he shot her?
Bad cops are bad cops regardless of race or religion. The tiny percentage of bad cops make all the good cops suffer by their actions. And when bad cops shoot someone and then get off then it does nothing to prevent it from happening again.
Err...that’s what I was saying.
Not so much, no.
According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the DA says the partner gave them #^#^#$. BS in other words. Here is the quote: “So I can’t talk to her because she’s gone, and the other cop just gave us some [expletive], OK. So guess what. I gotta figure out angles of the shot, gun residues, reckless use of force experts.” https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/police-officer-charged-with-murder-over-justine-damond-shooting-20180321-p4z5d2.html
His partner is covering for him too, gave the DA crap according to this article in the Sydney Morning Herald: https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/police-officer-charged-with-murder-over-justine-damond-shooting-20180321-p4z5d2.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.