The Hennepin county attorney’s office has ratcheted up Muhammad Noor’s charge. Way, way up:
Prosecutors said Thursday they are seeking to charge Mohamed Noor with intentional second-degree murder in the death of Damond, who the officer shot and killed in July 2017 after the 40-year-old woman called 911 to report a possible sexual assault in the alley behind her home.
“A person acts with the intent to kill not just when they have the purpose of causing death, but also when they believe that their act, if successful, will result in death,” prosecutors wrote in a court filing. “As a trained police officer, the defendant was fully aware that such a shot would kill Ms. Ruszczyk, a result he clearly intended.”
Does that seem a little – excessive?
While the information available via the news media is most likely incomplete at best, the evidence that Officer Noor rolled up to that call intending to rub out Justin Diamond is exceedingly sketchy.
I’m going to speculate – with a certain amount of information behind the speculation – that that’s because the evidence is extremely sketchy.
There is a reason for that.
The prosecutor has to reach a “beyond a reasonable doubt” verdict to convict the former cop. Given the evidence available, that would seem to be exceedingly unlikely.
Which I am going to assume, is intentional. Overcharging the former policeman, fully intending to fail to meet the “reasonable doubt” threshold, leading to his acquittal and freedom, will accomplish the county prosecutors office’s primary mission: look “aggressive” to an angry public, but preserve the prosecutors office’s relationship with the police department.
Because make know mistake – that relationship is more important to the county prosecutor than the lives of any mere peasants.
/In the latest filing, prosecutors are using some of Noor’s own defense arguments against him.
In arguing to dismiss the case, Noor’s attorneys previously said he was not negligent because he acted within his training as a police officer to shoot at a potential threat.
Now the prosecution is using that assertion to back up its request to expand the charges based on Noor’s alleged intent to kill, which “can be formed in an instant.” /
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/11/30/justine-damond-ruszczyk-killing-mpls-police-noor-charge
Didn’t Freeman lose his reelection bid to a guy that basically ran on prosecuting the police?
Too cynical, Merg. Freeman and whatever man bunned HC trial prosecutor he’s assigned to this are actually trying to win a conviction. This charge represents hardball by the prosecutor’s office.
Plunkett signals Noor’s intent to run with the ‘officer thought he faced imminent danger, so he went to the Glock’ angle, cuz it gets acquittal 99% of the time such that these things ever go to trail (see Yanez). Well there’s an intent to kill there that’s not implicit… its explicit. Voila, you can charge with 2nd degree murder too.
This case is going to be harder to get an acquittal on that other cop shootings because of the egregious details. Boxing him in with a 2nd degree murder charge is very aggressive, its not done to maintain long term peace with the MPD.
Freeman won reelection
The Justine Damond shooting was 19 months ago, and we’re just getting around to this. Meanwhile, last week, the outraged mayor of Minneapolis announced that the officer that racistly decorated a Christmas tree in a precinct station would be “fired by the end of the day.”
Big time trials take a long time to get to.
Those cops deserve to be fired or something close to it. Its unprofessional and disrespectful to their neighborhood.
I’ll bet that his religious upbringing, seeing her in a state of relative undress and believing that a “threat” never comes up at trial.
My thought about the charges was exactly the same as our host’s. How would one prove that? Now we can quibble about why a prosecutor would initiate charges that those viewing from afar might not understand, but “for show” is certainly not out of the question until he proves he’s got evidence to make that case.
They are making an example, nevermind its a protected class. I cant wait to hear CAIRs opinion on this.
They are making an example, nevermind its a protected class. I cant wait to hear CAIRs opinion on this.
People complained when Officer Yanez was only charged with second-degree manslaughter for shooting Saint Castille, they wanted Murder One. But when Yanez was acquitted, they complained the prosecution over-charged the case which was evidence of the Asian County Attorney’s protection of a Hispanic police officer who killed a Black driver so therefore, obviously, it was all about racism.
The criminal justice system is a poor mechanism to implement social policy.
Joe your using common sense, the SJW/leftist class is not capable of having understanding of that.
I followed the Castile case and am very conversant in it’s details. There was no Monday morning quarterbacking of it being overcharged. There is a critique that Choi’s people F’d up the introduction of evidence and didn’t question Yanez forcefully enough (IE, “did you actually ever see a gun?”).
I have a three pronged response.
Prong 1: Piling on is a standard tactic. Gives the prosecutor some stuff (he could never prove) that he can offer to drop for a guilty plea on the stuff he probably, but not guaranteed, prove.
Prong 2: I’m so happy to see a copper piled on.
Prong 3: Let this be a lesson to the reprobates that rule Mpls; just because his daddy was handy with an AK back in the Mog, don’t mean he’s cop material.