‘Justine did not have to die’: Police chief condemns bride-to-be shooting

NY Post ^ | July 21, 2017 | 12:29am

[conservative98]

MINNEAPOLIS — The fatal shooting of an Australian woman by a Minneapolis police officer responding to her 911 call “should not have happened,” police Chief Janee Harteau said Thursday, adding that the officer’s actions “go against who we are in the department.”

In her first public remarks since the death of Justine Damond, a 40-year-old life coach and bride-to-be, Harteau defended Officer Mohamed Noor’s training but criticized his actions.

“The actions in question go against who we are in the department, how we train and the expectations we have for our officers,” Harteau said. “These were the actions and judgment of one individual.”

[Impala64ssa]

"If you could all shoot like those guys , I wouldn't care if the whole danm department was queer." -Dirty Harry, Magnum Force. Normally I'd agree with Clint Eastwood, but when it comes to this mess in Mineapolis another one of Dirty Harry's words of wisdom comes to mind, from Sudden Impact commenting on the SFPD's affirmative action program if his female partner gets killed because of her lack of ability: "That's a hell of a price to pay for being stylish"

[Impala64ssa]

Compare the Minneapolis' mayor doing that photo op wearing the schmata on her head to pander (submit?) to the Somali community to another famous, albeit fictional Minneapolis resident from another time.
Back then Mary Tyler Moore's character of Mary Richards was the role model of many girls of the era, the quintessential LIBERATED women. Subminnion is freedom?

[piytar]

Just curious: do Tasers work on pit bulls? Serious question.

[Impala64ssa]

SUBMISSION!

[piytar]

The definitions vary from state to state. I went ahead and looked up the ones in Minnesota. And argument could be made for murder in the 3rd degree, but it would be a stretch. Looks like manslaughter in the 2nd degree could apply. See 609.205(1). Max sentence 10 years.

[Manly Warrior]

Pretty certain pre-meditation does not require days hours minutes or even seconds- but it could be at the moment of decision.

Did Noor plan to use lethal force on Damond at any time prior to choosing to point, shoot and employ lethal force against her? Yep. Has to be so, the use of LF is a conscious decision that requires planning and action IOT implement. Now, will a jury agree that in the moments leading up to the shooting, that Noor had intended to shoot anyone? That’s why the jury must be unanimous....

[SteveH]

Thanks

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.205

609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.

A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:

(1) by the person’s culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another; or

(2) by shooting another with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as a result of negligently believing the other to be a deer or other animal; or

(3) by setting a spring gun, pit fall, deadfall, snare, or other like dangerous weapon or device; or

(4) by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal, known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run uncontrolled off the owner’s premises, or negligently failing to keep it properly confined; or

(5) by committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.

If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it shall be an affirmative defense to criminal liability under clause (4) that the victim provoked the animal to cause the victim’s death.

[SteveH]

here is manslaughter in the first degree (i skimmed but it did not seem to fit— might be a deficiency in minnesota law?)

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.205

609.20 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.

Whoever does any of the following is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both:

(1) intentionally causes the death of another person in the heat of passion provoked by such words or acts of another as would provoke a person of ordinary self-control under like circumstances, provided that the crying of a child does not constitute provocation;

(2) violates section 609.224 and causes the death of another or causes the death of another in committing or attempting to commit a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offense with such force and violence that death of or great bodily harm to any person was reasonably foreseeable, and murder in the first or second degree was not committed thereby;

(3) intentionally causes the death of another person because the actor is coerced by threats made by someone other than the actor’s coconspirator and which cause the actor reasonably to believe that the act performed by the actor is the only means of preventing imminent death to the actor or another;

(4) proximately causes the death of another, without intent to cause death by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule III, IV, or V; or

(5) causes the death of another in committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.377 (malicious punishment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.

As used in this section, a “person of ordinary self-control” does not include a person under the influence of intoxicants or a controlled substance.

[SteveH]

wow, murder 3rd degree does not seem to fit either— but how about 2nd degree murder, under minn. PC 609.19(1)? No premeditation requirement, just intent to kill, which i think in this case is reasonable (multiple shots of 9mm, close range). what kind of bullet would he have?

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes?id=609.19&year=2016&keyword_type=all&keyword=murder

609.19 MURDER Next IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
Subdivision 1.Intentional Previous murder Next ; drive-by shootings.

Whoever does either of the following is guilty of Previous murder Next in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:

(1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or

(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).
§
Subd. 2.Unintentional murders.

Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional Previous murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:

(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or

(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, “order for protection” includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes?id=609.195&year=2016&keyword_type=all&keyword=murder

609.195 MURDER Next IN THE THIRD DEGREE.

(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of Previous murder Next in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

(b) Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II, is guilty of Previous murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.

Here are the top 5 9mm rounds used by LE. In the description of the first type (federal premiumm HST LE), note the design to create a “large wound cavity.”

http://www.wideopenspaces.com/the-best-5-self-defense-ammo-for-9mm-used-by-law-enforcement/

[Thumper1960]

I submit that if his sidearm was already unholstered, there was “intent” to use it. That he fired inside the car, across the front seat where the driver sat and had but one target, the woman talking with his partner, there was a certain level of “intent”. These things just don’t “happen”. This was no accident. This was a premeditated act. He had to unholster, take “aim” and fire the weapon at point blank range into a civilian who had called the department for an unrelated issue. The LEO’s and sycophants making excuses are disgusting.

[SteveH]

minnesota pc, murder 1st degree (premeditation) (609.185)

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.185

609.185 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.

(a) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of murder in the first degree and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life:

(1) causes the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another;

(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence, either upon or affecting the person or another;

(3) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of the person or another, while committing or attempting to commit burglary, aggravated robbery, kidnapping, arson in the first or second degree, a drive-by shooting, tampering with a witness in the first degree, escape from custody, or any felony violation of chapter 152 involving the unlawful sale of a controlled substance;

(4) causes the death of a peace officer, prosecuting attorney, judge, or a guard employed at a Minnesota state or local correctional facility, with intent to effect the death of that person or another, while the person is engaged in the performance of official duties;

(5) causes the death of a minor while committing child abuse, when the perpetrator has engaged in a past pattern of child abuse upon a child and the death occurs under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life;

(6) causes the death of a human being while committing domestic abuse, when the perpetrator has engaged in a past pattern of domestic abuse upon the victim or upon another family or household member and the death occurs under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life; or

(7) causes the death of a human being while committing, conspiring to commit, or attempting to commit a felony crime to further terrorism and the death occurs under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life.

(b) For the purposes of paragraph (a), clause (4), “prosecuting attorney” has the meaning given in section 609.221, subdivision 2, paragraph (c), clause (4).

(c) For the purposes of paragraph (a), clause (4), “judge” has the meaning given in section 609.221, subdivision 2, paragraph (c), clause (5).

(d) For purposes of paragraph (a), clause (5), “child abuse” means an act committed against a minor victim that constitutes a violation of the following laws of this state or any similar laws of the United States or any other state: section 609.221; 609.222; 609.223; 609.224; 609.2242; 609.342; 609.343; 609.344; 609.345; 609.377; 609.378; or 609.713.

(e) For purposes of paragraph (a), clause (6), “domestic abuse” means an act that:

(1) constitutes a violation of section 609.221, 609.222, 609.223, 609.224, 609.2242, 609.342, 609.343, 609.344, 609.345, 609.713, or any similar laws of the United States or any other state; and

(2) is committed against the victim who is a family or household member as defined in section 518B.01, subdivision 2, paragraph (b).

(f) For purposes of paragraph (a), clause (7), “further terrorism” has the meaning given in section 609.714, subdivision 1.

[SteveH]

this is on the top of my web search for “street justice” definition:

Street justice is a police response to a community mandate calling for action to be taken when formal institutions will not or cannot respond for various reasons. This street justice function has created widespread concern, particularly when police officers simultaneously display ethnic or racial prejudice.

from abstract of

NCJ 151407
Street Justice: A Moral Defense of Order Maintenance Policing (From Police and Society: Touchstone Readings, P 139- 154, 1995, Victor E. Kappeler, ed. - See NCJ-151401)
G W Sykes
1995

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=151407

urbandictionary definition:

Punishment or payback rendered at the hands of a vigilante or any other punishments given outside of official channels. Often times the punishment is illegal and excessive for the violation.

Linda parked her car in my spot for the 3rd time this month; I handed out a little street justice by slashing her tires.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=street%20justice

apparently it is also the subject of a few hollywood movies and tv series.

[dasboot]

Your post was exactly what went through my mind to contribute...but so much more eloquently put.

Outside of training? Of course!! Part of the 3%-ers, I reckon. Too bad the chief waited too long to show the guy the door.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

I already know what the darn street term means. I want to know what the poster meant before I accused him/her of something

[SteveH]

I was not certain what the term meant so I figured it would be of general interest to find some definitions. I apologize for implying that you did not know the term— that was not my intention. I am the ignorant one.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

Haha...ok....i guess I am shirt tempered lately. Have had some real gems om FR pulling some b.s. moves in me.

I apologize

[SteveH]

It’s OK since I was not clear on why i posted the definitions to begin with. :-)

[piytar]

Yeah, seems to me like murder 2 could fit.

Also seems to me like murder 3 might fit better under part (a) of 609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.

(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

So the counter would be to argue the cop had “intent” and therefore was not “without intent” as required by the statute? LOL, yeah, that will work in front of a judge or jury.

Manslaughter 3 is an easier case to make and still carries up to 10 years.

NOTE: None of this is a statement that the cop committed a crime (although I believe the cop did — but my belief means squat), rather just a layman’s analysis for discussion purposes only of the relevant statutes applied to the facts as presented by the media.

[cherry]

the same thing happens in Minn as does Washington and Oregone and NYS....you get one very large metro are, controlled by rats, and the rats will pull in statewide rat victiories if it takes cheating to do it....

[bone52]

We will see, but this has all of the facts for a text-book 2nd murder charge.

Also, “malice aforethought” doesn’t require rage, merely an intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm. Because of the deadly weapon doctrine, shooting someone demonstrates that intent.

Noor’s attorney should be looking to cut a deal to plea to voluntary manslaughter.