This is indeed likely, since Mohamed Noor was a golden boy, a showcased trophy: a Somali Muslim on the police force. He was kept on the force despite his manifest incompetence, and now it is likely that the Minneapolis political establishment, as committed as ever to playing identity politics with the force rather than hiring and firing cops on the basis of merit alone, will try to sweep this entire incident under the rug.
“No justice for Justine Damond? Legal loophole means the police officer who shot Australian woman dead as she stood in a driveway may never face criminal charges,” by Daniel Peters, Daily Mail Australia, July 27, 2017:
The U.S. police officer who shot dead Australian woman Justine Damond as she stood on a driveway outside her home may never face criminal charges.
Rookie cop Mohamed Noor is maintaining his silence and continues to exercise his legal right not to be interviewed by investigators probing Ms Damond’s death.
However, when the shooting becomes the subject of an internal police investigation, Noor will be compelled to provide statement or face the sack from the force.
The only catch is, any statement he provides during the internal investigation cannot be used in a criminal case due to a legal technicality, the Star Tribune reports.
The law is known as the Garrity Warning in Minnesota, and means that public employees under internal investigation are given the option to provide information or face disciplinary action.
‘Because you are being required to provide information under the threat of disciplinary action, the information you provide, and any evidence resulting from the information you provide, cannot and will not be used against you in any subsequent criminal proceeding,’ the warning reads….
Jen says
Of course not. Why do they even bother going through the “legal loophole” got off on a “technicality” mumbo jumbo. He’s muslim…therefore, Free Pass.
Custos Custodum says
There is NO LEGAL LOOPHOLE here.
The Star Tribune is floating a trial balloon to see whether people will swallow an ABSURD argument aimed to get Noor off a murder or homicide charge.
It is presumably true that testimony given in a disciplinary proceeding by a cop under investigation may not be used in court.
The CRIMINAL case against Noor need NOT and should NOT try to rely on internal PD investigation transcripts precisely because even indirect use is liable to taint the criminal case under the Garrity principle mentioned in the article.
The ANSWER for a (mythical) motivated prosecutor is quite simple: proceed as in any other case. Question witnesses, secure physical evidence, build a case. Do NOT rely on any internal police investigation which in the best case has different aims and procedures than a criminal investigations.
Try the case, perhaps offer Noor a deal whereby he surrenders U.S. citizenship and goes back to Somalia. (Of course, legions of social workers, prison officers etc. are counting on Noor for many years of happy overtime payments.)
WHAT WILL REALLY HAPPEN? It is clear that the entire political establishment not only in Minneapolis but throughout (and beyond) Minnesota is desperate to make the case disappear. So disappear it will, by hook or by crook (and by intimidation, … )
Count on prosecutors suddenly making numerous “rookie” mistakes, evidence disappearing, gross procedural violations without professional consequences, etc. etc., all for the sacred aim of saving Noor’s and the Democrats’ bacon.
Bill says
You nailed it. There will never be a criminal investigation of this matter, at least a serious one. Such an investigation will reflect poorly on the Mayor and other Democrat politicians from Minnesota. The elite have too much at stake to allow the truth to be revealed in any formal way. Sort of the way Comey and the DOJ sabotaged the investigation of Hillary’s obvious crimes and then set it up so that all her conspirators and witnesses against her could never be prosecuted.
It is going to take a civil lawsuit for wrongful death filed by the victim’s estate in order to begin to scratch the surface of the truth.
DrSique says
The DOJ had their investigation in Ferguson. Time to show up in Minneapolis and. potentially, levy federal charges against this trigger happy killer of innocent women………
Badger says
No no no, this murderous muslim must not get away with deportation to some country where he will be treated as a hero.
He must get death if that is an option, otherwise life without parole.
The victim’s family must be foremost in the prosecutor’s thoughts.
wool says
Please do not judge people based on theor religion , ethinic back ground, colour etc you have to focus on their personality and character and on what criminialty he or she does.
gravenimage says
Consistent apologist for Islamic savagery wool wrote:
Please do not judge people based on theor (sic) religion , ethinic (sic) back ground, colour etc you have to focus on their personality and character and on what criminialty (sic) he or she does.
…………………….
The idea that ideology is the same as intrinsic traits like race and ethnicity is *utterly* false.
Muslims adhere to a creed that enjoins them to slaughter any Infidel who does not submit to Islam. Is wool pretending that this is immaterial to their actions?
As for judging Muslims on their deeds, this is *exactly* what we are doing. Is wool ignorant of the 31,000+ Jihad terror attacks that Muslims have perpetrated–or does he just hope that we are?
TonI k says
How was this muslim cop vetted coming from a place like Somalia? And that includes his family. Bad enough they are here, none should be allowed in any law enforcement capacity.
ken wardlaw says
While I think that what this officer did was toughenretirement is reprehensible this is not a legal loophole. Ever heard of the 5th amendment to the US constitution. Garrity applies to anyone who can be compelled to give a statement in an employers investigation of wrongdoing.
Jen says
If I was that poor girl’s mother, I’m telling you…there would be… &*.)%
Tommy Robinson recently said that the UK is going to boil over soon. I can see the same thing in the US.
Norger says
Even without his testimony, the physical evidence (i.e. a dead, unarmed woman) and the testimony of the other officer should be enough to warrant a manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide charge.
Guest says
Yes!
Westman says
Someone tell me why he was sitting in a car with a drawn gun. Gang-bangers do this for obvious reasons. Do we have a new “Wells Fargo Wagon”, riding shotgun, policy in Minneapolis? Or do they just play with their guns out of boredom and the guns “accidently” go off in the presence of loud noises.
Carolyne says
Three times, too.
Daniel Triplett says
the testimony of the other officer
Noor’s partner is a co-conspirator in the cover-up. He’s the one who floated the phony excuse about a “threatening noise” before Noor fired his gun. He’s helping this murderer walk.
There’s a systemic problem with cops in America; they’re bullies and liars. Stronger than the Muslim problem in the Damond case, is the cop problem.
Blue Wall of Silence.
Bill says
The “investigators” let that leak, on purpose I believe, so that the officers could coordinate their stories without talking to each other. Convenient.
Norger says
I’m not a criminal lawyer (my practice is civil) and I haven’t been following the details of this case that closely, but I doubt the other officer’s testimony about a “threatening noise” will be enough, by itself, to allow this officer to escape liability. Certainly in a civil suit, hearing a “threatening noise” would not justify the use of deadly force, particularly against someone who is unarmed. The force has to be proportionate to the “threat.” I think this officer is going to have a difficult time convincing anyone that, from an objective standpoint, he could have reasonably perceived this woman as posing a sufficient threat that he was justified n shooting her. This has negligent homicide written all over it.
Dwayne Austin says
At a minimum they can fire him and hit him and the police department both with a civil rights lawsuit.
Karen says
Excellent idea!
Beagle says
Shooting a person to death ordinarily seems, at a minimum, to be negligent homicide until further inquiry is undertaken. And it’s often, as here, easy to prove.
One exception might be a seizure or another internal or external force causing someone to discharge a weapon involuntarily. That would have to be proven by the defense. Similarly, self defense is an affirmative defense which must be advanced by defense counsel.
Presumably, Noor’s gun is missing the bullet found in the victim’s body? That’s a good case for negligent homicide and shifts the burden to the defense.
I don’t understand why his testimony, or not, is essential to this case. You know, other than “Muslim, so insane or otherwise not guilty in all cases.”
Glyn Davies says
Yes you are right…he probably sneesed…and Bang shes dead…life is cheap in his world…
Beagle says
You missed the point. Noor would have to prove involuntary behavior caused the shooting. If he drew his gun in a non-threatening situation, improperly put his finger inside the trigger guard, aimed it at an innocent woman, then sneezed, thus discharging the weapon, he’s still negligent in several ways.
Was I so unclear? Based on news reports, he sounds guilty as hell. Clear enough now?
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Watch for street protests outside this officer’s house, with placards saying “Become Deceased!”
Johnny Cuyana says
What about his police partner, the one who was driving the car at the time of the incident? Is he ALSO protected, from public scrutiny, in any way whatsoever? That is, is he restricted, IN ANY WAY, from talking PUBLICLY about this situation and the particular actions of noor?
If, indeed, there will be a civil trial, is this partner NOT ABLE to provide testimony?
Of course, if this death-cult-muhammedan IS guilty — and, at this moment, for obvious reasons, I am not saying one way or the other — and he gets “off”, with minimal and/or no punishment … what are his chances of losing all support from his fellow officers? Of course, this could be a very big question where many answers would be needed before it can be addressed comprehensively.
Budvarakbar says
“That is, is he restricted, IN ANY WAY, from talking PUBLICLY about this situation and the particular actions of noor?”
Do not be so naïve — ever hear of a fatwah?
Pierre Le Kuffar says
I think he would be restricted under department guidelines (because the matter is under investigation) from giving a public (media interview) statement .
gravenimage says
I think you are right–although Noor himself has been mouthing off, and does not appear to be under any censure.
Bill says
And he is still drawing a paycheck. Just like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and her IT guy, Imran Awan. even though he was under criminal investigation. Someone was greasing the skids for his escape to Pakistan and he did not lose the gravy train until he was caught fleeing. The elite know how to take care of their own at the public’s expense.
Carolyne says
I think he could be called to testify in a trial if he is not a defendant,
Glyn Davies says
If this POS get off of criminal charges that will send the wrong message to all the other gun totting cowboys…infidel shooting season…Australian Infidel White and Proud
TassieR says
Garrity Warning or not, but the Minnesotan lawmakers do ensure, in fact, one thing only: if you are tenderly loved by lefties, you may anytime kill anyone, happily, proudly and without any punishment. Just like in the Third Reich times, when any Nazi thug could enjoy the same 007 license to kill.
mortimer says
Diversity hires put the public at risk by handing a gun to incompetents who may be severely inbred and who may have Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED).
mortimer says
Jihadists, misogynists and supremacists should not be hired by police forces. It’s asking for trouble…constant trouble…especially when the three IDEOLOGIES are comorbid as they were in the SUPREMACIST/MISOGYNIST mind of Mohamed Noor.
Glyn Davies says
Australian Armed Forces are actively recruiting these muslums now…we have a muslum woman head is near the top brass in our navy…fuk knows how that happened…probably like this cunt in the police force…all for show and diversity…we are having trouble with these people left right and centre over here…they will not stand for Judges in the courts as its below them…today they locked down all our major airports because of these fukers…they all think they are like mafia…over 340 mosques are in Australia and some are massive and hold way more people that are in the vacinity of these buildings…they have big plans…
Salome says
Does it really matter what he says? He was the shooter, the woman was unarmed, and his partner saw everything. Surely if there’s no information to suggest that it was reasonable to conclude that the lady was a threat, consequences should follow.
Custos Custodum says
Odds are Noor will suddenly “forget” his English in court and insist on speaking through a complicit Somali Muslim posing as interpreter.
Glyn Davies says
Who the hell will know what is being said…
mrmittens says
nowhere in america can information provided to internal affairs or your immediate supervisor be used in court. but internal affairs doesn’t bring charges or prosecute police officers for shooting an unarmed civilian- that is up to the DA.Officer Turkey Shoot has no protection from prosecution in a court of law but he can be fired for refusing to give a statement to internal affairs when ordered to- and he can be ordered to.
where is the DA ?
Carolyne says
A better question. Where is the Department of Justice, so ready to prosecute white cops?
somehistory says
The prosecution can still use: any notes taken, the 911 calls, the bullet removed from Ms. Diamond and the matching of said bullet to noor’s weapon, the police report that was filed of the incident, his partner’s statements, statements he made to his relatives and friends, whatever anyone passing by…as the guy on the bike…saw or heard., ….
There is a lot of evidence they can use. Most guilty people that go to trial have not given answers to questions as he is expected to do in this kind of interview with the Internal Affairs of his PD.
Many guilty people…and many not guilty people…do not talk to the police, preferring to remain silent. If they do talk before being read their rights, that can’t be used against them either.
The public should not fall for this. He can still go to prison if a prosecutor is available who possesses integrity.
ItsReallyQuiteClear says
There should be a Justine’s Law, which should say that if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim, they need to find four infidel witnesses to corroborate their story. Otherwise, they can’t use any fake cultural incompetence or mental derangement defense. It should also have penalties for any agent of the media who develops themself, or suggests on the part of the Muslim defendant, any form of “racial dissociative disorder” (like “transient Asian ethnicity delusions”).
I hope that the family gets justice, and that they consider suing the MSP police dept. and the city, in addition to the cretinous hyaena. The police dept. and city need to be deterred from this kind of cover up.
Manual Paleologos says
It probably does not matter. If there are any moslems, and particularly Somali moslems on the jury, they will not convict. The koran demands that moslems shall always take the part of another moslem over a kuffir, regardless of who is right. Given the demographics of Minneapolis, and the corrupt makeup of Minneapolis government, there is no way that one or more Somalis will not end up on the jury.
The fix is in.
Karen says
I fear you are probably right about this.
underbed cat says
The prosecutor should be made aware that Somali muslims are commanded not to testify against another muslim in a infidel court…….therefore barred from any juror duty or as witnesses …..maybe? I have to say the doctrine is clever…and deadly the deception is intense reseeding and supporting the evil. Only knowledge about the doctrine can stop the insanity.
Monty says
I remember when the issue of Somali refugees was first raised in Australia. No mention was made of Islam but it was pointed out that they come from a nation where violence and corruption was normal. We were advised to expect some antisocial behaviour. I found this astonishing. Most genuine refugees love the country that gave them somewhere safe to live and start a new life. Not Muslims. They have one agenda only and that is to convert the new nation to Islam. They do not care how they do it. A Muslim MP from Australia was refused entry to the USA. There was much uproar from some circles. A lot of us wondered why on earth he was allowed into the country in the first place. His loyalty, as with all Muslims, is to Islam. While we permit any Muslims to live among us, we are at risk. They will outbreed us, then outvote us. We have sown the seeds of out own destruction as free nations. What we are seeing and experiencing now is nothing compared to what is to come in the next 30 years or so.
gravenimage says
Monty wrote:
I remember when the issue of Somali refugees was first raised in Australia. No mention was made of Islam but it was pointed out that they come from a nation where violence and corruption was normal. We were advised to expect some antisocial behaviour. I found this astonishing…
………………..
Yes–in other words, roll over for Jihad, you filthy Infidels…
Troybeam says
Told you so, no charges will ever be filed, will they fire him, no. not that/ too much pressure from the Islamic population and fear of violence. Now if that was anyone other than a Muslim they’d be in jail for murder,
gravenimage says
Legal loophole means Muslim cop who killed unarmed woman may never face criminal charges
………………..
Just grotesque.
Bezelel says
There is a body, no doubt. No doubt that she called 911. no doubt that she was unarmed and nonviolent. There is a shooter, no doubt about who he is. There is a weapon, no doubt it belongs to noor and the bullet that killed Justine came from the weapon fired by noor. Not much wiggle room for justification. There is no excuse for killing Justine. The only defense would have to be a technicality, Maybe insanity but then the police would have to admit they employ insane people.
somehistory says
If he claimed insanity, it would be an affirmative defense and he would have to have someone testify to his insanity and the prosecution would have him examined by another expert.
Not many killers get off with that and then he would be locked up anyway.
Bezelel says
I’m waiting for someone to come out and say “It has nothing to do with islam.” Insanity has everything to do with islam.
somehistory says
I still wonder if he could have been the rapist that Ms. Diamond heard and when she realized there was a squad car there, she approached and slapped it to get their attention.
No headlights, no dash cam, no body cams on and when she got next to the driver and began to speak…noor shot her.
Every time squad cars come to my neighborhood, the lights are blazing….never with the headlights off.
I believe there are times when the approach is silent and dark, but that is when they know where the culprit(s) is.and they want to surprise him.
In this case, supposedly, they didn’t know where the reported rapist was.
Anyway an insanity defense is hard to prove…and prove it the defense must to win….insanity is not crazy, but one must not know what he did was wrong at the time of commission. How could he not *know*…not care, without a doubt, but by law, he had to know, even if islum taught him it was okay to shoot her.
I hope there is a trial…and a civil one too by her family.
Bezelel says
somehistory, There is a reason why the body cameras and dash camera were off. There is a reason for noor refusing to co-operate and for his partner’s account being vague.
Bezelel says
If someone had just fired a pistol in front of me inside a car and killed an unarmed female, I should think I would give a better accounting of the event. And yes if I were responding to a violent act in progress, I should think that the lights and maybe siren would cause the attacker to stop and flee, that is stop before someone is injured further or killed. But then you would have to assume the responders have some concern for the victim.
Carolyne says
A lot would depend on what a judge would allow to be entered as evidence. Our judges for the most part are on the side of the Muslims; maybe they are afraid of them and any repercussions or maybe they are just left-wing ignoramuses.
Mark A says
This shouldn’t prevent a case being built against Noor.
There should be enough other evidence to build a case without Noor’s statement. There is the statement of the other officer, the statement of the witness and his supposed video, the bullet(s) recovered from the body of the deceased woman, the ballistics match to Noor’s gun and so on.
The case will not depend entirely on Noor’s statement and there seems to be enough other evidence to make a case.
Anne Smith says
Very impressive interview with Congressman Womick. Not only did he have the facts at his fingertips, he spoke directly and to the point, no long waffling or vagueness. He got the points across clearly.
He certainly knows his stuff.
Let us hope others, too, take the trouble to make themselves so well informed.
If only we had MPs so well informed in UK. All we have are a bunch of waffling incompetents.
James Stamulis says
What happened to equal protection under the law? This POS needs to go to prison or then vigilantism needs to come back! I am willing to bet all the great cops hate this punks guts as well.
Kevin Dunn says
He does not need a confession to be convicted. I hope he goes for Murder 1
Creole Gumbo says
This is why vigilante groups evolved in societies.
John A. Marre says
It’s no longer in the news, unlike news reports of White cops killing Black suspects, which remain in the news for months, with reminders every anniversary. There are no demonstrations. There are no riots with firebombs thrown at stores and police. The family in Australia has to deal with the murder. At their expense. The mayor cares only about what the Somalis think of her, and the votes and money she will get from them.
So yes, Justine will not get justice. The Somali cop will quietly return to the streets, with his firearm.
Who is more important these days? Innocent Whites or Muslim Somalis? Answer obvious.
Carolyne says
Mr.Marre, I fear you are right. Maybe he won’t be returned to the streets, but will be given several million dollars for his inconvenience.
Valkyrie Ziege says
; Any law enforcement officer caught, at minimum, three times, not using their dash-board camera, and/or their body-camera, should be given the option of being fired for voluntary incompetence, or being assigned to permanent desk duty.
Sonny's Mom says
This is what we get when Democrats– and unions– run our cities
Paul Wheeler says
The immunity for internal affairs investigations has a sound reason, even though it may result in outcomes like this.
An internal investigation needs to get unvarnished truth, to the degree possible, from principals in police actions. The promise that material gained from internal investigations cannot be used in criminal or civil proceedings is designed to improve the audit and oversight process.
Sometimes this results in outcomes we hate. But it’s similar to safeguards built into medical peer review committees that oversee medical practitioners. Those results are sealed and not available for discovery in civil or criminal cases too.
And in the medical arena, this does result in physicians’ not facing civil or criminal action because the peer review is the only source, or best source, of information on an action.
We have enough experience with this idea to believe that generally, it results in better overall outcomes for us all. It does come at the expense of some individuals, and that’s bad. But the purpose of these internal reviews for police and doctors, and other similarly situated people, is to identify systemic weaknesses and remove them.
Removing the protections results in a less free and frank investigation and does not assure that civil or criminal cases will have better evidence that would lead to criminal convictions or civil penalties.
Jay says
We are currently at war against extremist Islam. This cop should be looked at as an enemy combatant fighting against the USA, because he is a Somali Moslem enemy. He never should have been hired by Minneapolis USA. All Moslems regard the USA as their primary enemy; the Koran defines all non Moslems as the enemy of Moslems. We should take this fact into account when any Moslems are brought to trial on criminal charges in the USA: They are active enemy combatants against the USA, whether their crime be violent, financial fraud, lawfare, sedition, arms trafficking, sex slavery, child rape, beheading or what have you. Not to regard the enemy as the enemy is the first and possibly the last mistake of an imbecile country.
Pablo Cruize says
The difference between Jesus and Mohammad is Jesus said NO to Satan…