MN - Justine Damond, 40, fatally shot by Minneapolis LE, 15 July 2017 #2

[jjenny]

What if?

Suppose she had a child in the home. Suppose there was an animal in the home. The search warrant was executed to cover their azz. I can't imagine LE not going to the home of a person that had been killed in the close proximity of their home and not checking their home. What if they didn't and then the home was burgled? Guess that would have been LE fault.

Well, if there was an animal in the house, like a big dog, I guess they could have shot that too if they went to the house. Not long before Justine was killed, in the same city, an officer shot two dogs when he went into their backyard on a false burglar alarm.

 

[CoolJ]

What if?

Suppose she had a child in the home. Suppose there was an animal in the home. The search warrant was executed to cover their azz. I can't imagine LE not going to the home of a person that had been killed in the close proximity of their home and not checking their home. What if they didn't and then the home was burgled? Guess that would have been LE fault.

You don't need a search warrant for blood, hair, fibers, writings etc.. etc.. etc.. to do a welfare check on someones home. I cannot believe people cant see the issue here. But i will just sit back and watch and go along with you all and ignore the law professors opinion

 

[Karinna]

You don't need a search warrant for blood, hair, fibers, writings etc.. etc.. etc.. to do a welfare check on someones home. I cannot believe people cant see the issue here. But i will just sit back and watch and go along with you all and ignore the law professors opinion

Well in this case they weren't using a SW for a welfare check though. I think the purpose was evidence collection IMO, but they didn't take anything from the victim's home because there was nothing that helped them in their investigation from the victim.
I wonder if the reason for the SW's was because the BCA requested them and not LE because LE doesn't even need a SW in certain circumstances.

(quote)
Exigent Circumstances

The legal term exigent circumstances refers to a situation in which a law enforcement officer with a pressing need to enter a residence without a warrant, is allowed to do so without violating the resident’s constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure. This is because emergency circumstances often outweigh the need for a warrant.
https://legaldictionary.net/exigent-circumstances/

 

[human]

And while I have not seen it the second search warrant is probably another "boiler plate" warrant and probably reads about the same for the address in question.

Many documents such as building permits, information for doctor's, etc all have the same questions for every person. They have been designed to cover the bases and may change if the need arises. There is nothing surprising that the warrant asks for information which may or may not be relevant

 

[Betty P]

I have read a couple of differing stories about what all happened too, from an initial story of Harrity talking to her at the car window just before Noor shoots, and then it changed to loud noises heard, fireworks?, a couple of gunshots?, and Noor then shooting his weapon, after Justine slaps the back of the vehicle and then appears at the car window on Harrity's side of it.
So goodness knows?

IIRC, Harrity was quoted as saying he was shocked that Noor shot her. He wasn't startled by Justine, he was startled by his partner's shooting her. Of course, shortly after his statement hit the news, the narrative was changed to say he was "startled" by a loud noise. Later it was changed to Justine slapping the car.

So the story has changed considerably as time passes. So far, we've not seen any evidence at all that Justine even touched the car. Nothing, no proof. If they took fingerprints from the car, they need to tell the public who those prints belonged to.

 

[turaj]

You don't need a search warrant for blood, hair, fibers, writings etc.. etc.. etc.. to do a welfare check on someones home. I cannot believe people cant see the issue here. But i will just sit back and watch and go along with you all and ignore the law professors opinion

they were not called for a welfare check...they had a dead woman and logical the home would be entered immediately.

 

[turaj]

I wonder why we haven't heard anything from any of Justine's neighbours if they heard any screaming or if they witnessed anything? Haven't seen anything mentioned.

the police has spoken to all of them...we will not hear anything until it is from BCA or MPD...these people could potentially be witnesses in a number of cases and have no doubt been told not to talk to anyone

 

[turaj]

Many documents such as building permits, information for doctor's, etc all have the same questions for every person. They have been designed to cover the bases and may change if the need arises. There is nothing surprising that the warrant asks for information which may or may not be relevant

yep you just check n/a...they did not have much time to draft a customized warrant which often is done well after the incident based on info that is gathered. Still say a "generic" or "boiler plate" warrant which is more common than not.

 

[turaj]

IIRC, Harrity was quoted as saying he was shocked that Noor shot her. He wasn't startled by Justine, he was startled by his partner's shooting her. Of course, shortly after his statement hit the news, the narrative was changed to say he was "startled" by a loud noise. Later it was changed to Justine slapping the car.

So the story has changed considerably as time passes. So far, we've not seen any evidence at all that Justine even touched the car. Nothing, no proof. If they took fingerprints from the car, they need to tell the public who those prints belonged to.

the story is changing because we have not heard the interview...stories always change as they are passed from one source to another. I don't think the story is changing for any reason other than that.

 

[turaj]

IIRC, Harrity was quoted as saying he was shocked that Noor shot her. He wasn't startled by Justine, he was startled by his partner's shooting her. Of course, shortly after his statement hit the news, the narrative was changed to say he was "startled" by a loud noise. Later it was changed to Justine slapping the car.

So the story has changed considerably as time passes. So far, we've not seen any evidence at all that Justine even touched the car. Nothing, no proof. If they took fingerprints from the car, they need to tell the public who those prints belonged to.

they don't need to tell the public anything until the BCA and MPD are done with their investigation...why would you think they NEED to tell the public anything. They may chose to tell the family and I can guarantee the family will not be talking until they are talking thru their attorney at the appropriate time.

 

[Karinna]

IIRC, Harrity was quoted as saying he was shocked that Noor shot her. He wasn't startled by Justine, he was startled by his partner's shooting her. Of course, shortly after his statement hit the news, the narrative was changed to say he was "startled" by a loud noise. Later it was changed to Justine slapping the car.

So the story has changed considerably as time passes. So far, we've not seen any evidence at all that Justine even touched the car. Nothing, no proof. If they took fingerprints from the car, they need to tell the public who those prints belonged to.

I think we will have to just go by the story about Justine slapping the back of the vehicle because that is documented in the actual search warrant.
We aren't privy to any evidence until and if Noor is arrested & charged & this goes to trial if that will happen?

 

[Karinna]

yep you just check n/a...they did not have much time to draft a customized warrant which often is done well after the incident based on info that is gathered. Still say a "generic" or "boiler plate" warrant which is more common than not.

Yes they had the SW about 7 hrs. after the shooting.

 

[Betty P]

I think we will have to just go by the story about Justine slapping the back of the vehicle because that is documented in the actual search warrant.
We aren't privy to any evidence until and if Noor is arrested & charged & this goes to trial if that will happen?

There's no proof that she hit the car in the search warrant, only a stated opinion by LE to justify the SW. There's no reason to validate that theory until they present evidence. As of now, it's only a theory.

Anyone who has followed stories of police shootings of innocent victims knows the stories told by LE don't always match the evidence. Unless they have fingerprint proof or had an eyewitness, it's just a theory.

We know they didn't turn on their bodycams or dash cams. Against regulations, they didn't record video or audio of anything that happened before or after the incident. That alone is very suspicious.

 

[Rocco]

There's no proof that she hit the car in the search warrant, only a stated opinion by LE to justify the SW. There's no reason to validate that theory until they present evidence. As of now, it's only a theory.

Anyone who has followed stories of police shootings of innocent victims knows the stories told by LE don't always match the evidence. Unless they have fingerprint proof or had an eyewitness, it's just a theory.

We know they didn't turn on their bodycams or dash cams. Against regulations, they didn't record video or audio of anything that happened before or after the incident. That alone is very suspicious.

My understanding was at the time, the policy was they were not required to turn on their body cams until they exited the patrol car and they're now working on changing that policy. Also, it was reported that they did turn on their cams when they exited their vehicle to give her CPR.

 

[frisson]

My understanding was at the time, the policy was they were not required to turn on their body cams until they exited the patrol car and they're now working on changing that policy. Also, it was reported that they did turn on their cams when they exited their vehicle to give her CPR.

That is convenient when one shoots from inside the vehicle.

 

[Rocco]

That is convenient when one shoots from inside the vehicle.

Convenient? So you think he intentionally shot her knowing he wasn't required to have his body cam turned on? He doesn't seem like the type to think that far ahead.

 

[mrs. moody]

Howdy to all, I've been lurking a bit but reading this thread intently. Yes in a perfect world LE should be entirely approchable but since people in the US can legally carry guns cops never know what is being hidden - so everyone is a threat until proven otherwise. Certainly we don't need jumpy, twitchy cops with loaded weapons (but isn't that why tazers were introduced? I mean to avoid accidental murders?) Let me tell you that I once got out of my car and approached an officer as he was calling in my license information - and did he ever scream bloody hell at me. Paraphrasing his words, "If you value your life lady NEVER ever walk up to my car like that! Get the f- back in your vehicle! G-damn it!" It was 6am and dark and I was late for work but I learned to regard police as enforcers, not helpers after that. It's "yes sir, yes sir, yes sir" all the way. I saw his hand on his weapon and I saw his eyes and the terror I felt was incredible. Guess I'm lucky to be alive. (I went to court after that and the judge sided with the cop totally. I'm a small, little woman but I scared a cop!)

 

[katydid23]

It doesn't matter if you are small and little. You could still have a weapon.

Just 2 days ago and police officer ran to an overturned car to help 2 trapped victims inside. He crawled inside, to help unbuckle the victims and release them from the car. While inside, the 28 yr old man, trapped upside down buckled in the seat---opened fire and shot the officer 14 times.

The cop is dead. No apparent reason for the shooting.

So yes, cops do get nervous during traffic stops. He was looking up your license info. For all he knows, you are running from a felony warrant that could put you away for 20 years. If you suddenly pop up on him while he is waiting to hear, you make him very nervous. Rightfully so.

Police are enforcers and they are helpers. But they get killed while 'helping' so they have to set boundaries to keep those deaths at a minimum.


oh , and :welcome: to WS...:fireworks:

 

[frisson]

Convenient? So you think he intentionally shot her knowing he wasn't required to have his body cam turned on? He doesn't seem like the type to think that far ahead.

I find the whole thing odd.... and off and suspicious. It would not shock me to know that someone shot a person knowing his cam was off. All the better with no cams. What's the point of having them if they are off anyway? .... when you need them the most... or rather when the victim needs them the most.

 

[Rocco]

I find the whole thing odd.... and off and suspicious. It would not shock me to know that someone shot a person knowing his cam was off. All the better with no cams. What's the point of having them if they are off anyway? .... when you need them the most... or rather when the victim needs them the most.

That's probably why they're changing their policy.

I don't think he was thinking ' Let's see here now, my cam is off so what the heck--I think I'll shoot her'. As if no one would ever know he shot her if his cam was off.

The problem was---he didn't think at all. He just shot her when she appeared at the window. No thought given as to whether or not he liked women, his partner's safety, who was at the window or why, whether or not his body cam was on or off. He just saw a figure at the window and shot.