Page 5 of 5

Re: MPLS police in spotlight AGAIN after questionable shooti

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:25 pm
by TechnoWeenie
3 complaints including a lawsuit.... One of the complaints/lawsuit was by a woman who called 911 and was turned into a victim....Hmmmm...

The woman was a retired social worker from Minneapolis, and had innocently called 911 to report an unknown thug who was sitting on her property smoking marijuana. The officers followed up on her complaint, and forced their way into her home through a screen door.

“Defendant Officer Noor grabbed the Plaintiff’s phone from her hand and then grabbed her right wrist and upper arm, thereby immobilizing her,” the woman’s lawyer stated. He then FORCIBLY ushered her to the hospital, thinking that she was mentally ill. A doctor saw her and discharged her in under 2 hours.

Re: MPLS police in spotlight AGAIN after questionable shooti

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:28 pm
by TechnoWeenie
deadshot2 wrote:
I see this unfortunate death as part of a much larger problem. Police are now hitting the streets and seeing EVERY person as a possible threat regardless of the situation. People who have demonstrated no threatening attitudes, moves, or even appearance are now handcuffed for "officer safety". The attitude of police officers toward the general public is atrocious with many referring to anyone not "on the job" as just another asshole I they have to babysit.



Exactly, when you teach cops to expect to be shot/stabbed/attacked by anyone not in a uniform, what do you expect?

Re: MPLS police in spotlight AGAIN after questionable shooti

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:53 pm
by Nate
os2firefox wrote:Image

1. The tongue is the fastest healing part of the body.
2. A honey bee can fly at 15mph.
3. Mosquitoes are attracted to people who just ate bananas.
4. Oysters can change from one gender to another and back again.
5. The first penny had the motto "Mind your own business."


So, Seattleites are oysters?

Re: MPLS police in spotlight AGAIN after questionable shooti

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:59 pm
by MadPick

Re: MPLS police in spotlight AGAIN after questionable shooti

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:09 pm
by TechnoWeenie


But a man resisting arrest for that would be charged... And convicted... Since you can't resist unlawful arrests...

Re: MPLS police in spotlight AGAIN after questionable shooti

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:37 pm
by TechnoWeenie
The attorney for Minneapolis police Officer Matthew Harrity said that “it’s certainly reasonable” for the officers to believe they were the target of a possible ambush when Harrity’s partner, Officer Mohamed Noor, shot and killed Justine Damond in a south Minneapolis alley Saturday night.


Motherfucker can't be serious.

'It's reasonable to believe we were being ambushed' ?!

Link

So, someone called 911, and was talking to you, you heard a loud bang, so it must be an ambush...


This is the shit that's fucking INFURIATING...

Re: MPLS police in spotlight AGAIN after questionable shooti

Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 7:01 pm
by jukk0u
Image

Re: MPLS police in spotlight AGAIN after questionable shooti

Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:19 pm
by jukk0u
New York rag reports that Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, the body conducting the investigation has issued a statement tha information obtained as a result of a search warrant (doesn't say what they searched):

"It says, “Upon police arrival, a female ‘slaps’ the back of the patrol squad … After that, it is unknown to BCA agents what exactly happened, but the female became deceased in the alley.”


http://nypost.com/2017/07/25/woman-slapped-police-car-before-cop-shot-bride-to-be/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_1904508

Re: MPLS police in spotlight AGAIN after questionable shooti

Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:50 pm
by TechnoWeenie
jukk0u wrote:New York rag reports that Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, the body conducting the investigation has issued a statement tha information obtained as a result of a search warrant (doesn't say what they searched):

"It says, “Upon police arrival, a female ‘slaps’ the back of the patrol squad … After that, it is unknown to BCA agents what exactly happened, but the female became deceased in the alley.”


http://nypost.com/2017/07/25/woman-slapped-police-car-before-cop-shot-bride-to-be/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_1904508


1. This sounds like BS
2. Even if so, 'slapped' ?! or tapped as if to say 'hey, I'm here'?

I guess #2 is if you're trying to get out of murdering an innocent person...

$5 says they pull out a tox screen and say she had alcohol in her system, then leave out the fact that it was .001% because she had a glass of wine with dinner... Yeah.. that's how much faith I have in the system..

The fact that the officer is in hiding and REFUSES to talk to investigators tells me he knows he's wrong.

Re: MPLS police in spotlight AGAIN after questionable shooti

Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:36 pm
by TechnoWeenie
Things just keep getting better.... Link

Apparently they requested a warrant for 'bodily fluids, controlled substances, and writings'.... and apparently.. it was granted.... but nothing was found.

WTF... They're seriously trying to dig up dirt and find SOME way to blame her for this shit?

What fucking judge signed off on the warrant? WTF does 'writings' or 'bodily fluids' have to do with ANYTHING?! What probable cause do they have to believe drugs were present?

This is fucking bullshit... Apparently warrants are handed out like candy..

According to court documents, investigators applied for the warrant on the following grounds:

The property or things above-described was used as a means of committing a crime
The possession of the property or things above-described constitutes a crime.
The property or things above-described is in the possession of a person with intent to use such property as a means of committing a crime, or the property or things so intended to be used are in the possession of another to whom they have been delivered for the purpose of concealing them or preventing their being discovered.
The property or things above-described constitutes evidence which tends to show a crime has been committed, or tends to show that a particular person has committed a crime.


So, where's the justification for the search?