Yeah, still weird. At the suggestion of the officers? That's just bad decision making to go into an alley where cops are looking for sexual predators/ deviants. That you complained about. deciding to do that of your own accord. IMO.

You worded it just as you wanted to.

I posted earlier about firearms training a local department has been using for a decade. the range officers use multiple targets and change around guns and other objects in the hands of the photographic targets. The scenarios force the officers to identify the actual threats.

One other thing that would have helped in this situation is GET OUT OF THE SQUAD. Park the squad on an adjacent street and walk into the alley mid-block. The officers would have had the use of their ears as well as their eyes, and they would have had more information to make a tactical assessment and approach.

Every department in the country should be looking at this and thinking about giving their officers tools to avoid these situations in the future.

There was a time when people could assume with a relative degree of certainty that the immediate area being protected and served by a law enforcement officer was a safe area. Her fundamental error probably lies therein.

Hodges is a fucking moron
Boy am i glad i dont live in Minneapolis

So, was it a Muslim sexually assaulting a person and the Muslim cop shot the women for interrupting the spread of the rich and vibrant culture?

She must not watch the news. Ferguson. Baltimore. Boston. Dallas. Berkeley. etc.

You go, girl.   Youre now attacking in two different directions, accusing two people of being on a high horse.  Oh, look, a second reference to someone needing a nap.  Time for new material.  

I didnt stamp my feet, <edited -40xb>, i stated what the law is.   I dont give a shit what your idiotic, ignorant opinion is, but i will address it with facts to highlight how aggresively ignorant you are, thats why i reply.  You can pretend I'm stamping my feet, but what the adults see is that someone who understands the law is explaining how it works to someone who doesnt know jack shit.  

Heres a tip, if you're forced to attack everyone who disagrees with you as "blabbering" and being on a high horse, perhaps everyone else isn't the problem.

There are NOT two sets of rules with regard to statements after a shooting, no matter how many times you bleat it.  He doesnt have to make a statement, you wouldnt have to make a statement.  

He, as an employee, can be forced to make a statement or be fired.  You, as a non LEO, dont face that dilemma.   If he makes that statement, he was forced to make it so it cant be used aganst him.  Thats not a special rule for cops, Clarence Darrow.   If they locked you in a room and asked you questions without a lawyer despite you asking for one, guess what, Matlock, they cant use your atatement in a criminal trial, either.  

Because, law.  Thats how it works.

Ive already said, multiple times, you or i would get fancy bracelets and a cot to sleep on, while he was released home, and that is different, but thats not what we are tslking about.

You may go now.

Looks like she saw the cops pull up and went to talk with them. Where do you get that she was running around in the alley before they got there?

Were you present at this shooting? I wasn't either.

Until we have irrefutable evidence, everything is alleged. The ONLY thing we KNOW at this point is that we have a deceased female. Until we have solid evidence all have is an 'alleged' shooter!

Newspaper articles, in general, are little more than anecdotal entertainment value, they're certainly not sworn witness statements or forensic evidence, now are they?

We've had these discussions before, where you race to convict police. Unless you can present solid, substantial, irrefutable evidence, there's no possible way you can 'know' what happened.

The one constant in ANY event is that things are NEVER how they appear at face value. It may be better, it may be even worse that it first seemed. It may be something totally different altogether. BUT, it will never be what it seems at first glance.

Wait for the evidence to decide. Discuss theories all you want, but you can not convict no matter how bad you'd like to. Sure don't be putting words in people mouths, especially not mine!

You need to dial back the knee jerk, unthinking "dont blame the victim" mantra.  

Putting allegedly in front of the specualtive "innocent" at this stage merely accurately confirms that we dont know much about this.   You dont know any more than anyone else posting.

She appears to have been faultless, but may not have been. Until shes established to have actually been faultless, techincally, shes not even been established to have BEEN the victim, let alone innocent.  

Thafs not blaming her for anything, and an unthinking mantra of "dont blame the victim" is premature.

White knight frenzy much?   He said it was wierd.  Because it IS wierd.  She called 911 to report a possible rape, then goes outside to where she thinks a rapist was, thats wierd.

Maybe she ran out to help, maybe she saw the cops and ran to the car, feeling safe, we dont know.

But saying something that is objectively wierd is not blaming her, no matter how many times you screech it.

We don't know when she went outside. Maybe she didn't go  outside till she saw the cops. That isn't weird at all.

Uh, yeah.   We don't know a lot of things.  That's my point.  It's not blaming her to note it appears strange that she went outside.

It would be my belief that if I suspected a violent crime is taking place, it's not directed at me or any of mine & me not being LEO, the absolute best place for me to be is 'somewhere else'!

At best, my unneeded presence only complicates the situation by being an in the way hinderance, at best & being a total liability/distraction, when the LEOs need total concentration on the job at hand, at the worst.

Edit; This in no way insinuates that her being where she was makes her responsible for her own demise. I am saying that this does serve as a lesson to the rest of us as something to not do. Had she simply stayed in the house, she'd likely still be alive. The police knew her address if they needed a statement from her.

I've always gone to meet police when I've called them although the list of things I'm willing to invite the man into my life for is shrinking.

Our governor is a heading pile of drugged out shit who hates cops and is afraid of his own shadow
His opinion means exactly dick.

There are reasons for this.  Most people blame it on affirmative action.  WHile that is a factor, particularly with a decent selection of the current generation of administrators, there are other factors that are in play and depending on area may be even bigger issues.

Money.  About 10 years ago I spent a few months helping a smaller county.  WHile I was there they hired a guy who was married with one kid.  After the kid accepted the job, the Sheriff handed him the paperwork because he qualified for food stamps.  Seriously, starting pay was around 12 dollars an hour.  My base pay was twice that (starting base pay was about 16K a year more).  And our pay sucks so bad we had exactly zero qualified applicants on our last posted opening.  I have worked with cops from the south who thought 40K a year starting pay with no pension was cop heaven.  Because their starting pay in GA or AL was under $15 with a similar cost of living.

The Ferguson effect.  LE has been a damned if you do damned if you do not profession since before I started.  However, now the public is far more aware of it.  They are far more aware of the risks (not the on the job physical stuff, the other shit).  And people qualified to be a cop under the old standards can make a fuck ton more money doing other shit.  So the costs of becoming a cop are starting to outweigh the benefits for a lot of people.

Society in general.  When I was a rookie cop, we did not get weekly or daily calls to go be a parent cause suzi soccermom hasn't been one for the first 15 years of kids life.  We did not get 911 calls to come make the coyotes be quiet so suzi soccermom could get some sleep.  Only really old widows and spinsters called us to come fix their furnace or water heater at 3 am.  If some one locked themselves out of their car, you did not have to get a waiver signed and if it fucked up the window they did not sue your ass.  They knew the risk and accepted it.  I was not expected to be a mental health counselor or a paramedic.  I was expected to show up, stabilize shit enough to keep people alive until the trained professionals in that field took over.   I did not deal with petty shit because some one in their mid thirties or older had not figured out how to adult yet.

Money part 2:  Training.  Everyone wants highly trained professional cops.  Until it is time to actually pay for highly trained professional cops.  The state requires one qualification and four hours of firearms training a year.  On the other hand the courts have ruled that meeting state requirements is not adequate.  Specifically, the courts expect departments to train officers to deal with any likely scenario.  My current agency used to do one classroom day/ qual, a qual only and two range days a year for thirty hours of training.  Budget changes have cut that back to one range day a year.  With thirty hours a year you can maybe cover the majority of the basic likely scenarios in a few years.

That is only one area.  You also have arrest control (cheaper than guns for instructors), driving (fucking expensive), cic, prea, animal rights/awareness(decent for the city kids), senior abuse, it's always the mans fault, CIT, mental health awareness, legal updates (useful and relevant), anti-bias (again), community policing (seriously, it is not a rapidly changing field.  Do I really need to go through a class or two on it every freaking 2-5 years to keep the feds and the state happy?), first aid and cpr (useful) and a host of other training that does not have a lot of bearing on the traditional cops job.  Nope, I am not whining, just pointing out while I am used to the stupid (in the slow boil frog kind of way) when you factor in the other issues, a lot of bright, motivated rookies, guys and gals you WANT to be cops, put up with it for a year or two and then say fuck this and go on to other things.

The triumph of management over leadership.  Much like when I was in the military, managers are every where and generally fucking shit up.  Leaders are harder to find and may not be around long enough to unfuck things.

Seriously, every one says you get what you pay for.  But they expect to pay a wage some where between  a clerk at sprouts and middle class, Spend maybe $300 per officer per year for training, to get a professional gunfighter, who is also a paramedic, veternarian, social worker, mental health counselor, accident reconstructionist, Nascar driver, MMA fighter, surrogate parent, home repairman, role model, mediator, and attorney.  All from memory while never hesitating, thinking about the decision, researching the law or making a single mistake.

Is it any wonder a lot of potentially good cops are saying fuck this and becoming social workers, probation officers, lasik repairman , sysco sales reps or hvac guys?  That bigger cities are lowering standards? Or that smaller towns and counties are sometimes stuck hiring other peoples rejects or ummmm, marginal candidates?  Or that when a friend of my girlfriends kid asked me if I had any advice for her boyfriend who wants to be a cop I said, be a firefighter?

That's about all he does on this site.
That and posting clips of news article with emphasis despite not having new or relevant information.

We don't have an "alleged" shooter, we have a known shooter.  What we don't have is a reason for him having shot her, since he's refusing to talk.

Why is no one capable of understanding the concept of context?

All of that is immaterial to this fellow's guilt or innocence. He either did wrong and will be held accountable through due process, or he will be exonerated by the same. Based on what's publicly available at this point I'm betting he's held accountable, but he still gets his opportunity to explain.

Where the officers encountered the woman was a block and a half from the call.

She was out in the alleyway and a city block and a half from her home where she made the call.
The officers had just arrived in the area.

Until we know that the bullet that killed her came from a weapon that he fired, we have an 'alleged' shooter..

In a back alley in her pajamas? That job must be an endless line of crazy every min of every day.

Aren't chiefs frequently called politicians?  If so, in their approval of policy aren't they really rather similar to the politicians that put constraints on the military?

I keep your plate of crow warm for you too.

The very idea you think there is some scenario (given the evidence release thus far) that this is a good shoot leads me to believe your judgement is in question.

I will break it down for you.

1) He shot her. Not alleged.
2) This was a bad shoot.

You can spin it all you want, but even his fellow police union brothers are not backing him up.

Meh, not gonna judge.  The feeling of nothing bad can happen to me is still strong in a lot of people.  Plus, people do weird/stupid shit all the time.  You would think, everyone was smart enough to figure out that running out of the house you just bought, in a town you just moved to, with a chromed ppk in your hand, finger on the trigger, saying nothing at all, as the cops are getting out of their car, responding to your call of an active burglary, might get guns pointed at you.  But some people can not figure that out, at least not until they are looking down the barrels of a beretta 92 and a S&W model 19 with a cop screaming drop the gun.  On a positive note, he was smart enough to drop the gun before catching a couple 9mms and .357s.

As good of a theory as any at this point.

Not saying why he chose to draw, point, and fire his gun at the woman (across his partner's lap no less) sorta sets the bar for "his real reasons for doing it" pretty low.

Defending some criminal, sudden jihadi syndrome, just not liking white women, just not liking women at all, etc. Something like that has to be the reason if silence is the better option.

Hell, having a psychic break and not being able to explain but still talking is better.

Excellent points. Good, very accurate read for any of us..

Not that it means anything for a Minnesota case, but in Arizona the County Attorney makes the decision to bring charges (I.e take a case to grand jury or preliminary hearing). 

Typically the investigation, when complete, will be handed over to the OIS Committee chair (who is an experienced prosecutor in the office) who will then present the case to the OIS Committee.  It is made up of several other prosecutors and the elected or his designee.  The committee will give its recommendation to the elected who will make the final decision about whether or not to pursue charges against the officer involved.

If the county attorney decides to go forward, the case will be assigned to a prosecutor will present it to a grand jury or conduct a preliminary hearing.  Then it will be up to either the grand jury or the judge to determine if probable cause exists and if the officer is indicted.

And, if anyone is interested, the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys has recently released a white paper on how they believe any OIS should be investigated and reviewed.  The paper can be found at the bottom of this page:
http://www.apainc.org/peace-officer-use-of-force/

They have bearing, but they set a minimum.  Politicians (in and out of uniform) can and do make them more restrictive, do they not?  Managers in uniform with leaves and stars can make them even more restrictive than that can they not?

You're broken.  Saying "we don't know yet" IS NOT the same as "I bet she was in the wrong"

Beg, borrow, or steal a clue, white knight gadfly.  The plate of crow will just fit up your colon, try it.  

Your intelligence isn't in question, it's severely impaired.  Stop posting until you get a clue.

The alleys are connected to the yards, this is a nice area of town, and she was probably a little naïve and privileged.  But that's the reality of the neighborhood.  It's not weird that she would walk a block and a half to talk to the cops, who she must have expected would fix things.  That's the expectation the people of Minneapolis have for the police.  I guarantee you MPD isn't going to make some fucked up statement like "if she wasn't there; she would still be alive; hurr durr the city is a free fire zone at night; everybody just lock yourselves in your house and let us combat the forces of evil".  

Saying that is a good way for the police to invite the man into their lives, in the form of oversight that you don't want.

Hey, insult away.

This is a bad shoot.

The fact that your rigorously defending the shooter is Blue Knighting, huh?

LOL you go buttercup. The ignorance is me watching you back-peddle.

Way to research that after it was pointed out princess...5TH AMENDMENT 5TH AMENDMENT!

And that attacking part seems kind of ironic for someone who replied like a condescending prick to my original post. Of course you would say not but a lot of your spam posts in this thread prove otherwise.

Because, law.  Thats how it works.

Sure the law works the same for everybody amiright? Reality is often different that what the written law says should happen.

We can keep going this way if you want but all it is is bitching at each other.

In Nebraska any in custody or in apprehension death requires a grand jury see the case, no matter how clear cut it is.

I think the way that it's written even when the state conducts a death penalty the case is seen by the grand jury.

I agree and it might be the right thing to do in the likely event of being charged.  It's certainly not helping him in the court of public opinion though....this thread is a nice example of that

Acccurate observation of impaired thinking is not an insult.  

I didn't defend anyone, or condemn anyone.   Bleating that I am is not dispositive, specially coming from you.  How about you post up every syllable of mine defending "the shooter", or shut the fuck up with your nonsense?  Choose one.  

We don't know enough to say, definitively, what happened.

How impaired is your thinking where that observation is either condemning her or defending him?

I told you to get a clue, do so.

Unless there was a grassy knoll nearby, we have one witness who has directly stated that Noor fired shots, we have Noor's recently fired handgun, we (more accurately, the investigators) have fired brass matching the ammunition in Noor's gun, and we have no other suspects in the shooting.

Oh no.  He's gotten to "tell".  Don't want him to get to "make".

It's interesting you make the distinction between policy and law with regard to politicians when they are responsible for both.

You are (edit) delusional.   I did not and am not backpeddaling.

He cannot be forced to talk to cops.   Period.  He can be forced to give a statement on the IA side or lose his job.  But that statement cannot be used against him, for the same reason the arresting cops can't make him talk.  That's the same protections you get, sweetie pie.    

Fifth amendment, Johnny on the knob.  

I didn't research anything.   I aced Con Law twenty eight years ago, you know, in law school.  I already knew the law.  You still don't know it, but are living in fantasy land where I'm backpeddaling.  Maybe you could quote up where that happened, or, alternatively, drop the fantasy that you're making a decent showing.  

I know, make some more shit up, that will help save face.