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

[shadetree44]

Do you think he will ever want to be LE? A read somewhere the statistics of how many LE stay on after they have shot someone. Hardly any.

I can't say. I have no input into how this guy thinks so an evaluation would be a guess. By the few things he and/or his family voiced my guess would be, other than loosing his job, it really does not bother him. Again that is a guess on my part. I would think they would show more remorse over the situation. Taking someone's life, at least the first ones, will leave a mark on you.
Unless something very bazaar surfaces and the facts remain as they are now I would hope his career in LE is finished. Liability would be too great to chance. I just can not fathom what reason would justify his actions, but stranger things have happened. The fact he fired across his partner, and without reasonable provocation, and killed an unarmed, innocent citizen, leaves little wiggle room. Have a great weekend!

 

[Tippy Lynn]

(snipped by me to shorten post)

I have been trying to find verification of the policy in Minneapolis in cases of police shootings---RE: drug testing officers.

found this on govt website:http://www.minneapolismn.gov/police/policy/mpdpolicy_5-300_5-300

5-308 NOTIFICATION OF FIREARM DISCHARGES (10/16/02) (04/30/15)

4. The advised supervisor shall ensure that drug and alcohol testing is conducted in accordance with the conditions and procedures in the MPD Drug & Alcohol Testing Policy (P/P Section 3-1000). (04/30/15)

So it appears that the regulations require that the officer would have been drug/alcohol tested at the scene.

The Minneapolis Police Officers are represented by a labor union. Therefore, they are subject to the drug and alcohol testing policies in their union labor agreement.

According to the MPD Drug & Alcohol Testing Policy (P/P Section 3-1000)
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/police/policy/mpdpolicy_3-1000_3-100

A.Minneapolis Police Department employees are subject to the drug and alcohol testing policies found in the employees’ respective union labor agreements. Employees not represented by a labor union are subject to the City of Minneapolis’ Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy.

Link: Minneapolis Police Officers Contract (January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019)
http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@hr/documents/webcontent/wcmsp-200131.pdf
Page 77
Section 30.04 - Circumstances For Drug Or Alcohol Testing
A. Reasonable Suspicion Testing. The Employer may, but does not have a legal duty to, request or require an employee to undergo drug and alcohol testing if the Employer or any supervisor of the employee has a reasonable suspicion (a belief based on specific facts and rational inferences draw from those facts) related to the performance of the job that the employee:

1. Is under the influence of drugs or alcohol while the employee is working or while the employee is on the Employer's premises or operating the Employer's vehicle, machinery, or equipment; or
2. Has used, possessed, sold or transferred drugs, alcohol or drug paraphernalia while the employee was working or while the employee was on the Employer's premises or operating the Employer's vehicle, machinery or equipment (other than in connection with the employee’s official duties); or
3. Has sustained a personal injury as that term is defined in Minnesota Statutes §176.011, Subd. 16, or has caused another person to die or sustain a personal injury; or
4. Was operating or helping to operate machinery, equipment, or vehicles involved in a work- related accident resulting in property damage or personal injury and the Employer or investigating supervisor has a reasonable suspicion that the cause of the accident may be related to the use of drugs or alcohol; or
5. Has discharged a firearm loaded with bullets, slugs or shot other than: (1) on an established target range; (2) while conducting authorized ballistics tests; (3) while engaged in recreational hunting activities; or (4) when authorized by a supervisor to shoot a wounded or dangerous animal or to disable a light, lock or other object which presents an impediment or hazard to an officer who is carrying out his/her lawful duties.

More than one Agent of the Employer shall be involved in determinations under subsections A.1. and A.2. of this Section 30.04.

The mere request or requirement that an employee be tested pursuant to subparagraph 3, 4 or 5, above, does not constitute an admission by the employer or the employee that the employee has caused an accident or death or injury to another nor does it create or establish any legal liability for the employer or the employee to another person or entity.

 

[Jennifer17]

(snipped by me to shorten post)






The Minneapolis Police Officers are represented by a labor union. Therefore, they are subject to the drug and alcohol testing policies in their union labor agreement.

According to the MPD Drug & Alcohol Testing Policy (P/P Section 3-1000)
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/police/policy/mpdpolicy_3-1000_3-100

A.Minneapolis Police Department employees are subject to the drug and alcohol testing policies found in the employees’ respective union labor agreements. Employees not represented by a labor union are subject to the City of Minneapolis’ Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy.

Link: Minneapolis Police Officers Contract (January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019)
http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@hr/documents/webcontent/wcmsp-200131.pdf
Page 77
Section 30.04 - Circumstances For Drug Or Alcohol Testing
A. Reasonable Suspicion Testing. The Employer may, but does not have a legal duty to, request or require an employee to undergo drug and alcohol testing if the Employer or any supervisor of the employee has a reasonable suspicion (a belief based on specific facts and rational inferences draw from those facts) related to the performance of the job that the employee:

1. Is under the influence of drugs or alcohol while the employee is working or while the employee is on the Employer's premises or operating the Employer's vehicle, machinery, or equipment; or
2. Has used, possessed, sold or transferred drugs, alcohol or drug paraphernalia while the employee was working or while the employee was on the Employer's premises or operating the Employer's vehicle, machinery or equipment (other than in connection with the employee’s official duties); or
3. Has sustained a personal injury as that term is defined in Minnesota Statutes §176.011, Subd. 16, or has caused another person to die or sustain a personal injury; or
4. Was operating or helping to operate machinery, equipment, or vehicles involved in a work- related accident resulting in property damage or personal injury and the Employer or investigating supervisor has a reasonable suspicion that the cause of the accident may be related to the use of drugs or alcohol; or
5. Has discharged a firearm loaded with bullets, slugs or shot other than: (1) on an established target range; (2) while conducting authorized ballistics tests; (3) while engaged in recreational hunting activities; or (4) when authorized by a supervisor to shoot a wounded or dangerous animal or to disable a light, lock or other object which presents an impediment or hazard to an officer who is carrying out his/her lawful duties.

More than one Agent of the Employer shall be involved in determinations under subsections A.1. and A.2. of this Section 30.04.

The mere request or requirement that an employee be tested pursuant to subparagraph 3, 4 or 5, above, does not constitute an admission by the employer or the employee that the employee has caused an accident or death or injury to another nor does it create or establish any legal liability for the employer or the employee to another person or entity.

I would expect him to be alcohol and drug tested as her body would have been, but was his house searched looking for things that may have induced him to shoot an unarmed woman?

 

[MsFacetious]

I do believe they were looking for medication that she may have been legally taken. The investigators may have found it odd that a woman would go outside in the dark when she already thought a rapist may be in the area close by.

RSBM

Perhaps she went outside because the police had arrived, so she felt she was safe.
She likely felt like she needed to give them further information...
and logically would have felt she was at little risk with two cops to protect her...

 

[Jennifer17]

RSBM

Perhaps she went outside because the police had arrived, so she felt she was safe.
She likely felt like she needed to give them further information...
and logically would have felt she was at little risk with two cops to protect her...

Yes. This would be quite usual for an Australian woman. We have no fear that the police are going to kill us.

 

[Karinna]

Yes. This would be quite usual for an Australian woman. We have no fear that the police are going to kill us.

Transcript
LEIGH SALES, PRESENTER: A dramatic spike in fatal shootings by police has sparked calls for increased police training nationwide.

In Queensland alone, there've been three fatalities in as many weeks and there've also been police shootings this year in Victoria, Western Australia and New South Wales.

In many cases, the casualties have been mentally ill and that's prompting families and criminologists to call for a review of police tactics and training.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s4145574.htm

 

[Karinna]

I would expect him to be alcohol and drug tested as her body would have been, but was his house searched looking for things that may have induced him to shoot an unarmed woman?

I'm not sure why you keep going on about her house being searched?
Noor didn't shoot the victim right next to his house, he was an on duty LE going to a call out by dispatch. No one even knows if his house was searched or not?
I think if you go back on this thread a ways the Verified Attorney here gave a good explanation of why a search warrant was issued by the BCA.

 

[Jennifer17]

I am going on about her house being searched, because it was not necessary. I am not sure who you are speaking about who is a verified attorney. I prefer to believe a law professor.

 

[Jennifer17]

Transcript
LEIGH SALES, PRESENTER: A dramatic spike in fatal shootings by police has sparked calls for increased police training nationwide.

In Queensland alone, there've been three fatalities in as many weeks and there've also been police shootings this year in Victoria, Western Australia and New South Wales.

In many cases, the casualties have been mentally ill and that's prompting families and criminologists to call for a review of police tactics and training.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s4145574.htm

v
Give us the stats about how many Australian police have shot innocent victims? Is this becoming an Aus/US thing. Justine held dual nationality. So you do not have to rip her off because she was a foreigner. She was not.

 

[Karinna]

v
Give us the stats about how many Australian police have shot innocent victims? Is this becoming an Aus/US thing. Justine held dual nationality. So you do not have to rip her off because she was a foreigner. She was not.

My reply & link to your post when you said this.
SBM
Yes. This would be quite usual for an Australian woman. We have no fear that the police are going to kill us.
You mentioned Aus. police and not me. You are making it about both, not me.
I'm not sure what your point really is? JR held dual citizenship and it does involve both countries.

 

[Karinna]

I am going on about her house being searched, because it was not necessary. I am not sure who you are speaking about who is a verified attorney. I prefer to believe a law professor.

You can believe what you want but we value people here that are verified because they speak from a professional or Insider POV.

 

[CoolJ]

I'm not sure why you keep going on about her house being searched?
Noor didn't shoot the victim right next to his house, he was an on duty LE going to a call out by dispatch. No one even knows if his house was searched or not?
I think if you go back on this thread a ways the Verified Attorney here gave a good explanation of why a search warrant was issued by the BCA.

Actually Karinna, that verified attorney was commenting without seeing the SW. In the article we were speaking of a law professor who did see the SW said there was no probable cause for the search. I think it is a pretty reasonable position to take considering we have MSM back up to support that line of thought.

 

[Karinna]

Actually Karinna, that verified attorney was commenting without seeing the SW. In the article we were speaking of a law professor who did see the SW said there was no probable cause for the search. I think it is a pretty reasonable position to take considering we have MSM back up to support that line of thought.

Yes that's fine what the law professer said, but did he explain and give a reason why there was no probable cause? It's all well and good throwing out such a statement but why not explain his position on it? Otherwise it just leaves people wondering and speculating about it all.

RSBM
This is what verified attorney PrairieWind said, post #445
(quote)
I havent been able to look at the search warrants yet but I think some are maybe getting the wrong impression from them. You have to understand what is going on inside the context of WHEN it is happening. After the shooting, certainly MPD supervisors would have quickly arrived and would have asked what happened. I assume Noor and Harrity gave some indication what happened. This is probably where Harrity's statement that he was "stunned" came from. Perhaps Noor says something about her acting erratic or out of control and "on drugs" or something. Because its a police shooting, MBCA arrives to investigate, they are not MPD. If Noor did say something like that, they need to investigate it, they'd be irresponsible not too. Despite the law professor's statement, Noor's statement (if he made it) would provide the probably cause to get a warrant. MBCA would want to see if any drugs are found in her home. They need a warrant because there is no one to give them access to the house without it. They need a warrant to look in her phone. This is not victim blaming or cover up, its investigating all possible avenues. I wouldn't be surprised if MBCA never expected to find any drugs, but since Noor perhaps indicated drug use, they need to follow up. That they removed nothing from the house allegedly supports the idea that they found nothing. Not only does this not help Noor, or cause and "international incident" it helps clear up some things and helps to clear the victim.
(unquote)

 

[jjenny]

The text of search warrant doesn't say anything about "erratic" or "on drugs."
It simply says a woman slapped the back of the car then ended up deceased.
This article has the warrant so please take a look.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2017/...lapped-squad-before-cop-fatally-shot-ruszczyk

 

[CoolJ]

The text of search warrant doesn't say anything about "erratic" or "on drugs."
It simply says a woman slapped the back of the car then ended up deceased.
This article has the warrant so please take a look.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2017/...lapped-squad-before-cop-fatally-shot-ruszczyk

People been looking for this for days! Good job!

I am not a lawyer, but this looks like a hot mess. Is this even a warrant to search her home?

Something about it just doesn't feel right. PrairieWind?

 

[Karinna]

The text of search warrant doesn't say anything about "erratic" or "on drugs."
It simply says a woman slapped the back of the car then ended up deceased.
This article has the warrant so please take a look.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2017/...lapped-squad-before-cop-fatally-shot-ruszczyk

Thanks for posting up the link. Good find.

 

[Karinna]

I still maintain PrairieWind's explanation is correct, in that Noor might have alluded to the victim was in some way at fault for the shooting which led to the SW by BCA of her residence and whatever evidence was collected from the scene of the shooting including the LE vehicle.

 

[Jax49]

People been looking for this for days! Good job!

I am not a lawyer, but this looks like a hot mess. Is this even a warrant to search her home?

Something about it just doesn't feel right. PrairieWind?

I'm not seeing her house...just "the body and immediate area of the deceased..."

Am I missing it?

 

[Karinna]

I'm not seeing her house...just "the body and immediate area of the deceased..."

Am I missing it?

BBM, Probably not. LE don't have to have a search warrant to search your house, i posted about this upthread with a link.

 

[Jax49]

BBM, Probably not. LE don't have to have a search warrant to search your house, i posted about this upthread with a link.

I thought there were two warrants reported...one for the body and area and another for her residence. moo