Minneapolis police Officer Mohamed Noor opened fire on 9-1-1 caller Justine Damond on July 15th of this year, killing her in an alley. The question then and now is Why?
On December 21st, Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman released a statement updating the case and addressing those who are awaiting answers and justice for Justine. Those last three words imply a level of culpability. Did Officer Noor firing his service weapon at Justine Damond fall within state statutes and Minneapolis Police Department policies, justifying discharge of his firearm? Did Noor flinch in reaction to “noises” described as “in the area” coupled with the mindset stemming from ambushes of cops? Are we pondering the stark dynamic of split-second decision-making among law enforcement officers?
Officer Noor’s partner driving their squad car, Officer Matthew Harrity, told state investigators “he was startled by a loud sound near the squad.” It is tentatively assumed that is what led Officer Noor to extend his arm across Officer Harrity and discharge his weapon through the open window where Justine Damond stood. CPR was administered by Officers Harrity and Noor, to no avail.
Mr. Freeman said his office is still weighing “our impending decision on whether to charge a Minneapolis Police officer for shooting an unarmed woman.”
We are weighing “our impending decision on whether to charge a Minneapolis Police officer for shooting an unarmed woman.” –Hennepin County prosecutor
In a prepared statement, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office reiterated the synopsis of their pending investigation, saying, “Most of you are aware that on the night of July 15, two officers responded to a 911 call by Justine Damond of a possible sexual assault occurring somewhere outside her South Minneapolis home. As the officers slowly drove through an alley, Damond approached the car and Officer Mohamed Noor fired his gun, killing her.”
Justine Damond (Credit: Facebook/Justice for Justine Damond Ruszczyk)
Reports indicate the officers were driving in an alley without lights activated. This also happened at a time when ambushes of police officers were prevalent. Theoretically, given those circumstances the “loud sound near the squad” car may have compelled Officer Noor to fear for his and his partner’s lives, perceiving Damond as a direct or accomplice threat, thus firing his weapon.
Although both cops were outfitted with body cameras, neither had his activated at the time of the Damond shooting.
Officer Noor has not cooperated with investigators since the incident and reserves his Constitutional right to silence. Per a Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) July 21, 2017 press release, “Officer Mohamed Noor has not provided a statement regarding the incident and has declined to be interviewed by BCA agents. Officer Noor’s attorney has not provided any update about when, if ever, an interview would be possible. Under the law, the BCA cannot compel the testimony of the officer.”
Minneapolis police Officer Mohamed Noor (center) posing for a photograph with a female colleague and several Somali citizens of Minneapolis. (Credit: Facebook/Minneapolis Police Department).
Although due process does not come with a stopwatch, the BCA attempted to assure Justine Damond’s loved ones and the public that they are diligently working the case, saying, “The BCA understands the urgency of this case and is proceeding as rapidly as possible without compromising the integrity and thoroughness of the investigation. Forensic testing continues and evidence is being examined. BCA agents will conduct any additional interviews, as necessary.”
But a few hiccups came out the other day. According to the Associated Press, the Hennepin County prosecutor was recorded as having said some inflammatory things at a holiday party recently, unambiguously pointing fingers at investigators. Mike Freeman reportedly unloosed “I’ve got to have the evidence. And I don’t have it yet. And let me just say, it’s not my fault. So if it isn’t my fault, who didn’t do their jobs? Investigators, and they don’t work for me. And they haven’t done their job.”
“I’ve got to have the evidence. And I don’t have it yet. And let me just say, it’s not my fault. So if it isn’t my fault, who didn’t do their jobs? Investigators, and they don’t work for me. And they haven’t done their job.”
Typically “evidence” and “they don’t work for me” coupled with “they haven’t done their job” means investigators failed to collect, have lost, or irrevocably botched evidence. Any or all of these are critical factors. Furthermore, Mr. Freeman saying he doesn’t have the evidence “yet” alludes to the potential for Officer Noor submitting his side of the story.
Nowadays, that could also mean he is hopeful someone with video-recordings of the shooting incident will submit that evidentiary footage. I would think one would have already furnished such evidence. I believe Freeman is holding out for Officer Noor to talk.
Less conservative than his written statement, Mr. Freeman uttered a bevy of frustrations he is encountering, including the following: “I have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, [that] the moment he shot the gun, he feared for his life. And he used force because he thought he was gonna be killed. But I can’t. He won’t answer my questions because he doesn’t have to, OK? We all have Fifth Amendment rights, and I respect that. So I can’t talk to her because she’s gone, and the other cop just gave us some (expletive), OK? So guess what? I gotta figure out angles of the shot, gun residues, reckless-use-of-force experts.”
Those last few tidbits are fundamental aspects in a shooting investigation. If Mr. Freeman is actually claiming he needs to start processing the data necessary to arrive at forensic conclusions, he is indeed tardy. Therefore, it does appear some requisite investigative traits were not accomplished. I do, however, have a hard time conceiving that; like first-graders citing their ABCs, it is just too conventional in police work.
The expletive Freeman uttered in regard to “the other cop” is probably a reference to what expels from a bull’s hind section, denoting testimony one deems useless, especially since Officer Noor’s silence fails to corroborate anything the other/witnessing officer offered to prosecutors.
I hear the weight of public pressure bolstered by the court of public opinion on a prosecutor’s shoulders. Perhaps venting will allow the patience necessary to concentrate on what the investigation does entail, working it forward from there. Unfortunately, Mr. Freeman’s publicly stated disappointments only underscore an already inexplicable situation.
On the heels of the prosecutor’s revelation, Bob Bennett, a Minneapolis-based lawyer representing Justine Damond’s family in Australia, had some terse remarks for the investigators also: “I hope that the BCA hasn’t so irretrievably damaged the evidence, or failed to recover evidence that should be reasonably expected to be recovered at the time that the crime occurred. And I use the term ‘crime’ pointedly and intentionally,” according to TwinCities.com.
“We are deeply concerned about the possibility that the initial investigation was not done properly.” –John Ruszczyk
A CBS-affiliate in Minnesota aired a segment in which the Damond family expressed concerns for the BCA investigation. Justine’s dad, John Ruszczyk, said “We are deeply concerned about the possibility that the initial investigation was not done properly.” Again, that speaks to the potential of poor evidence collection. That, too, begs the question Why?
Following the prosecutors statements chiding state investigators, Mr. Ruszczyk spoke to media in Australia, saying he is “deeply concerned” that the BCA’s investigation surrounding the shooting death of his daughter “was not done properly or with the greatest sense of integrity or completeness.”
“Justice for Justine”
A support page called Justice for Justine Damond Ruszczyk was created shortly thereafter her death. A legion of supporters beckon answers regarding the state BCA investigation and the role of Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman. Many have labeled the killing an “open-and-shut case” and published hashtag #theworldiswatching. In particular, the citizens of Australia are watching.
From what we have gleaned from the aforementioned revelations (or lack thereof), there is an open case with no definitive signs of it being shut anytime soon. From a law enforcement perspective, that is not a pleasant thing but it is also an endemic feature to work a case as far and wide as possible…which unfailingly takes investments of time. Indeed, it is difficult for loved ones to comprehend and accept such a notion. However, it is ultimately in their favor to not have knee-jerk reactions when it comes to justice principles. No matter how clear-cut an incident seems to be, there is often more to it. It is law enforcement’s job to assemble all pieces before furnishing its findings.
Whatever the breakdown is about, from wherever the competency-level accusations stem, a woman is dead, a once-engaged man is heartbroken, a city is aflux, a family awaits answers, and a metropolis police chief is no longer.
After Justine Damond’s death, then-Minneapolis police Chief Janeé Harteau took to the podium mic to address media inquiry in response to the shooting involving Officer Noor.
It is no stack of science that police executives (or any police officials) should refrain from speaking on “active investigations.”
Then-Chief Harteau made a rather premature claim that “Justine didn’t have to die.” Harteau also said “I would prefer Officer Noor would speak.” It is no stack of science that police executives (or any police officials) should refrain from speaking on “active investigations.” In the police profession, it is a no-brainer to diligently investigate, collect evidence and testimonies, while maintaining applicably silent as to case status. Half-baked chapters compel varying speculations whereas the complete story maintains everyone on the same page.
The day after Ms. Harteau made those statements at a bank of media mics, she resigned. Reportedly, the Minneapolis mayor claimed she lost confidence in Harteau’s leadership abilities. It was reckless and foolish commentary made by Harteau.
The Washington Standard covered the officer-involved shooting and the subsequent departure of Harteau under the title “Minneapolis Police Chief Resigns Over Muslim Killer Cop’s Murder Of Justine Damond” written by Tim Brown. Suffice it to say, this incident didn’t smell right from the get-go. Clearly, Tim Brown’s mind was made up in July 2017. However, due process and the spinning wheels of justice remain on the track, albeit seemingly discoursed.
Although Justine Damond never got to stand at the altar for her August 2017-planned wedding, Harteau was named “Woman Law Enforcement Executive of the Year” on August 3, 2017.
Nevertheless, justice goes on.
As Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman stated, “There is good reason to take real care in our review to ensure we know exactly what happened and have the evidence to support our decision on whether or not to file charges. First, the laws governing the use of deadly force by a police officer are different than those that apply to a citizen firing a gun. The law requires us to view an officer’s actions from the perspective of a reasonable peace officer, understanding that they must make split-second decisions. Second, in order to determine whether the actions were reasonable, we must know what happened before, during and after the fatal incident. As a result, we have been making sure we have all the necessary information to make our decision.”
Minus all “necessary information” pursuant to building a solid case, prosecutors ordinarily trickle down their expectations of investigators. It is not unheard of for district attorneys to roll the ball back onto the court of law enforcement personnel with admonitions to sew-up loose ends (their professional opinion) so as to further galvanize the case. I suspect that is exactly what is transpiring, delaying the Justine Damond shooting death investigation.
There is undoubtedly an undercurrent implying investigators may have erred in some fashion.
There is undoubtedly an undercurrent implying investigators may have erred in some fashion. Time will tell. And although time runs out for some things, there should never be a let’s-just-get-it-over-with attitude behind the loss of a life. The more you feed a jury, the better they can comprehend and appropriate justice.
Since his inflammatory statements condemning BCA investigators, Mr. Freeman apologized for his accusations and claimed he will “share news about the status of our charging decision next week,” reported the Star Tribune. I suspect it will be candor regarding case weaknesses and not a charging decision at all.
Do you think Officer Noor will eventually share his side of the story?
