- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 7,465
- Reaction score
- 61,006
I'm just not sure how helpful the kid's video and testimony is.Good thing he was recording the scene. It appears that the officers were not. Even the ones who arrived.
I'm just not sure how helpful the kid's video and testimony is.Good thing he was recording the scene. It appears that the officers were not. Even the ones who arrived.
I'm just not sure how helpful the kid's video and testimony is.
Kind of a wash.my firxt thought was that the video was not harmful to the defense and didnt
help the prosecution
Kind of a wash.
It might help the prosecution in that he said he noticed a woman with a cellphone up to her ear and her other hand in the air. So it sounds like she didn't quietly sneak up on them unexpectedly--she was making herself known and waving them down.
It might help the defense in that Noor was the one who told him he could keep recording as long as he stepped to the side. So it appears Noor wasn't trying to hide anything.
Smoking pot and having several shots of whiskey before coming to the scene might make the jurors wonder how reliable any of his testimony is.
NOOR TRIAL: Harrity said, “I had my gun out I didn’t fire and then Noor pulled out and fired.”
10:12 AM - 16 Apr 2019
Frankly, I don't believe for even a nano second that Harrity had his gun out, IMO, this is a total out and out bold face lie.
jmazankstp on Twitter
Isn't it just astounding how the body cams can just be on and off again without any reason????Prosecutors on Tuesday attacked the credibility of Minneapolis police Sgt. Shannon Barnette, the supervisor on the scene after officer Mohamed Noor shot and killed 911 caller Justine Ruszczyk.
Barnette has emerged as a key figure in the trial of Noor, who faces murder and manslaughter charges in Ruszczyk's 2017 shooting death. She has refused to cooperate with a state investigation into the shooting.
According to trial witnesses and prosecutors, Barnette deactivated her body camera multiple times during the night of the shooting, jumped to conclusions about whether Noor and his partner had been startled before Noor shot, and told another officer that Ruszczyk was "probably a drunk or a drug addict" after she was killed.
Toxicology tests showed Ruszczyk did not have any alcohol or drugs in her system.
Noor trial: Prosecution raps police supervisor who shut off bodycam
Something stinks and it's not the week old tuna in my fridge.
This is such BS here. Why should LE be allowed to ever shut off a body cam or dash cam, ever, ever, ever!!!!US police supervisor's credibility questioned in murder trial for Justine Damond Ruszczyk
Sergeant Barnette was tasked with getting the basic facts before handing them over to an investigative agency, the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA).
But in a Minneapolis court on Tuesday (local time), prosecutors suggested Sergeant Barnette was more concerned with protecting Mr Noor.
Prosecutor Amy Sweasy asked Sergeant Barnette why she switched off her body camera before speaking to Mr Noor.
Sergeant Barnette was unable to offer an explanation besides claiming it was a "private conversation".
The body cameras used by Minneapolis police only store the last 30 seconds of vision — without audio — when they have been switched off.
A silent video was played in court and showed Sergeant Barnette talking to Mr Noor in the passenger seat of a squad car.
In the video, Mr Noor appears to raise both hands and aim in what the prosecution alleged was a simulation of the shooting.
Sergeant Barnette denied he demonstrated anything or that the conversation went beyond her asking how he was feeling.
Prosecutors slam US police supervisor who turned off bodycam after Sydney woman was shot
The lies!!
Isn't it just astounding how the body cams can just be on and off again without any reason????
I read he only got 29 seconds of videoI'm just not sure how helpful the kid's video and testimony is.
I read he only got 29 seconds of video
It is kind of a wash. My guess is that the prosecution just put him on the stand to get his info out there, so that the defense couldn't call him later to try to claim something was covered up.Kind of a wash.
It might help the prosecution in that he said he noticed a woman with a cellphone up to her ear and her other hand in the air. So it sounds like she didn't quietly sneak up on them unexpectedly--she was making herself known and waving them down.
It might help the defense in that Noor was the one who told him he could keep recording as long as he stepped to the side. So it appears Noor wasn't trying to hide anything.
Smoking pot and having several shots of whiskey before coming to the scene might make the jurors wonder how reliable any of his testimony is.
We will see what else Harrity testifies to. However, so far, I don't think it helps Noor. I don't care how scared you are or if you are a police officer. You can't just shoot someone that walks up to your car or surprises you. That IS manslaughter.Noor trial: Officer's partner takes stand to detail Ruszczyk shooting
He added that he didn't want to "mess with" his body camera if someone was going to "jump out" at him, but that he also didn't think the possibility of threat was high enough to require him to turn it on.
We will see what else Harrity testifies to. However, so far, I don't think it helps Noor. I don't care how scared you are or if you are a police officer. You can't just shoot someone that walks up to your car or surprises you. That IS manslaughter.
If he did not think that the possibility of threat was high enough to required him to turn cam on, then he must be lying about having his weapon out, IMONoor trial: Officer's partner takes stand to detail Ruszczyk shooting
He added that he didn't want to "mess with" his body camera if someone was going to "jump out" at him, but that he also didn't think the possibility of threat was high enough to require him to turn it on.
Yep, including perjury, IMO.I think Harrity is going to do everything he can with his testimony to get Noor acquitted
Yep, the two statement are clearly in conflict.If he did not think that the possibility of threat was high enough to required him to turn cam on, then he must be lying about having his weapon out, IMO
Yep, including perjury, IMO.
Yes, one statement trying to justify why Noor had his weapon drawn and said that he also had his drawn but then they didn't feel the need to turn on cams.......JMOYep, the two statement are clearly in conflict.
I think Harrity is trying to walk a very fine line. I think that personally he doesn't give a crap about Noor. But he is trying to be loyal to the union which is telling him to keep quiet.I think Harrity is going to do everything he can with his testimony to get Noor acquitted