MN - Justine Damond, 40, fatally shot by Minneapolis LE, 15 July 2017 #3

[Tippy Lynn]

But the "slap" on the car was only documented THREE DAYS LATER, after the fact. (Meaning after everything was reviewed by union and attorneys).

Facts not in evidence or on statement signed on date of incident don't carry a lot of credibility to me.

I understand what you're saying.

Just saying........it's going to be hard to get the jury to agree there was a perceived threat.

 

[Rocco]

But the "slap" on the car was only documented THREE DAYS LATER, after the fact. (Meaning after everything was reviewed by union and attorneys).

Facts not in evidence or on statement signed on date of incident don't carry a lot of credibility to me.

Plus, they could find no proof that she ever touched the car---even though they tried.

 

[turaj]

But the "slap" on the car was only documented THREE DAYS LATER, after the fact. (Meaning after everything was reviewed by union and attorneys).

Facts not in evidence or on statement signed on date of incident don't carry a lot of credibility to me.

I sure hope the jury sees it that way...you are so right about the union...the union leader Bob Kroll is unbelievable and could care less about justice for Justine or anyone for that matter.

 

[ilovewings]

The prosecution described this case to the jury as "tragedy after tragedy"-- very good description IMO

praying for justice for Justine.

 

[PrairieWind]

But the "slap" on the car was only documented THREE DAYS LATER, after the fact. (Meaning after everything was reviewed by union and attorneys).

Facts not in evidence or on statement signed on date of incident don't carry a lot of credibility to me.

It is up to the jury to decide if there was a slap or other loud noise. I think the prosecution did a good job poking big holes in that theory. Not only did they show it was unlikely that Justine hit the car (no evidence she did) but also pointed out that it is quite likely that the police later came up with that theory. I can't think of any other case right now where the prosecution really put the police department on trial like this. Its shameful really. The MPD needs to step back and take a long look at themselves.

 

[Tippy Lynn]

It is up to the jury to decide if there was a slap or other loud noise. I think the prosecution did a good job poking big holes in that theory. Not only did they show it was unlikely that Justine hit the car (no evidence she did) but also pointed out that it is quite likely that the police later came up with that theory. I can't think of any other case right now where the prosecution really put the police department on trial like this. Its shameful really. The MPD needs to step back and take a long look at themselves.

It’s a complete disgrace. The MPD needs to step back and change their ways, but I doubt they will.

I hope the jury sees it this way!

 

[PrairieWind]

It’s a complete disgrace. The MPD needs to step back and change their ways, but I doubt they will.

I hope the jury sees it this way!

Regardless of the verdict in this case, I think the citizens of Minneapolis need to demand that there be a complete overhaul of how the police department is run and how these officer shootings are investigated.

 

[Tippy Lynn]

Regardless of the verdict in this case, I think the citizens of Minneapolis need to demand that there be a complete overhaul of how the police department is run and how these officer shootings are investigated.

The voice of the citizens falls on deaf ears.

The lack of reporting on this case is a good example of how it works.

 

[Rocco]

Regardless of the verdict in this case, I think the citizens of Minneapolis need to demand that there be a complete overhaul of how the police department is run and how these officer shootings are investigated.

The fact that Sgt. Barnette is still employed there speaks volumes.

 

[Rocco]

Here's some more detailed information about the jury:

They are 12 men and four women, including alternates. Six appear to be people of color or indigenous or have identified themselves that way. In questionnaires and in initial interviews with attorneys, they revealed some of who they are.

One is a woman who is a doctor who talked about implicit bias in her profession, noting that people sometimes mistake her for a nurse or a lab technician and question her knowledge as a doctor

There is a woman who is a gun owner and a hunter who said she would generally give police officers who testify more credit than civilians and would find it difficult to convict a police officer.

There is a carpenter. A grocery store manager. A civil engineer. A person who works in financial services. A firefighter who is also a paramedic — who says he knew three people on the prosecution's witness list — and trained with one of them. He also said he would weigh the testimony objectively.

Several talked about their experience as immigrants.

None of the jurors of color are alternates. So, in final deliberations, the verdict could be decided by a 12-person jury that appears to be half white and half people of color.

Race has been at the center of this trial already with questions for the jury about implicit bias and whether any of them have had negative experiences with Somali people.

Noor trial: Sounds, figures, fears surface in first day of testimony

 

[mickey2942]

Interesting, that a juror said she "would find it difficult to convict a police officer". We own guns, and I would have zero problem convicting a person who killed someone with a gun, police officer or not. An irresponsible person with a gun is a danger to everyone.

A police officer actually has a higher bar, due to the extensive weapons training.

Former Officer Noor killed an unarmed woman, from a car. I am trying to figure out how he felt in fear of his life, while seated in a car.

But, I am still trying to figure out how the killer of Kate Stinle is free...he stated he randomly found a loaded gun, picked it up, it went off, and killed Kate Steinle...and we won't even talk about the Casey Anthony verdict.

 

[PrairieWind]

Interesting, that a juror said she "would find it difficult to convict a police officer". We own guns, and I would have zero problem convicting a person who killed someone with a gun, police officer or not. An irresponsible person with a gun is a danger to everyone.

A police officer actually has a higher bar, due to the extensive weapons training.

Former Officer Noor killed an unarmed woman, from a car. I am trying to figure out how he felt in fear of his life, while seated in a car.

But, I am still trying to figure out how the killer of Kate Stinle is free...he stated he randomly found a loaded gun, picked it up, it went off, and killed Kate Steinle...and we won't even talk about the Casey Anthony verdict.

I am the same. I am a gun owner and generally pro law enforcement. But there is no excuse for this. And the fact that he wouldn't cooperate with the investigation speaks volumes to me. He KNEW the shooting wasn't justified. I don't think its 2nd degree murder, but it certainly is manslaughter.

 

[turaj]

I am glad the jury is sequestered...usually makes for a shorter more intense deliberation. I am, however concerned about the statement from the juror who would find it difficult to convict a police officer...but this case is really not the norm. As a Minneapolis resident I so agree with all the statements about our police force and the overhaul needed...I have said many times would not want to have to call any of them to my home. Sad because I know there are good officers out there...but I think we are losing many.

 

[ilovewings]

I wonder how that juror that said he/she would find it difficult to convict a police officer made it on the jury

 

[PrairieWind]

I wonder how that juror that said he/she would find it difficult to convict a police officer made it on the jury

There must have been something else about her that the prosecutor liked to keep her on.

 

[wary]

There must have been something else about her that the prosecutor liked to keep her on.

If she didn’t know the details of this case, the prosecutor may have felt that the evidence would convince her. ‘Hard to convict a police officer’ implies that someone is pro-law-and-order—so the details of this case might horrify them even more. (I’m projecting slightly—I’ve just described myself.)

 

[Rocco]

I'd find it difficult to convict a police officer too, but here I sit, waiting for at least one guilty verdict.

I wonder how late they can deliberate.

 

[Rocco]

Paul Blume‏Verified account @PaulBlume_FOX9 7m7 minutes ago




DEVELOPING: #NoorTrial jury is done deliberating for the day, and will resume deliberations at approximately 9 a.m. tomorrow

 

[turaj]

There must have been something else about her that the prosecutor liked to keep her on.

It may have been as simple as prosecution was out of strikes?

 

[Tippy Lynn]

I was looking at the Philando Castile case. According to one juror, the wording of the law was the main factor leading to the verdict.

@PrairieWind was saying this might be an obstacle for jurors.

On July 6, 2016, Philando Castile, a 32-year-old black American, was pulled over while driving in Falcon Heights, MN who was shot killed by Officer Yanez.

After five days and more than 25 hours of deliberation, the jury decided that the state had not met its burden for a conviction. Yanez would have faced up to 10 years under Minnesota law if he had been convicted. The jury that determined Yanez's fate consisted of seven men and five women. Two jurors were black. Following the acquittal, a jury member told the press that the specific wording of the law regarding culpable negligence was the main factor among many leading to the verdict.

Shooting of Philando Castile - Wikipedia