Woman calls 911....Get shot

[philip964]

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/us- ... iuPZ1wJEMs

As you might expect in gun free Australia, this is still big news. Australia only has 24 million people. One murder is a big deal down there, as it should be.

[philip964]

https://news.yahoo.com/hearing-ex-minne ... 48527.html

Evidence issue of ex police officer refusing to testify.

[thatguyoverthere]

https://news.yahoo.com/hearing-ex-minne ... 48527.html

Evidence issue of ex police officer refusing to testify.

From the referenced article:

"Prosecutors say investigators asked to arrange for a voluntary interview with Noor and that he declined through his attorney.
Defense attorneys say prosecutors aren't allowed to use that against Noor in court because he has a constitutional right not to make any self-incriminating statements.
But prosecutors argue that they can use a defendant's pre-arrest silence if the defendant was under no government-imposed compulsion to speak.
"In sum, the defendant had a choice on whether to tell his side of the story during a voluntary interview in a non-coercive setting," prosecutor Amy Sweasy wrote. "His decision not to do so is relevant."

So we have a right not to speak, but if we exercise that right, our silence can be used against us. I believe that this defendant needs to be held accountable for his action of killing an innocent person, but this tactic of trying to use a person's silence against them by a prosecutor is troubling to me.

[Jusme]

https://news.yahoo.com/hearing-ex-minne ... 48527.html

Evidence issue of ex police officer refusing to testify.

From the referenced article:

"Prosecutors say investigators asked to arrange for a voluntary interview with Noor and that he declined through his attorney.
Defense attorneys say prosecutors aren't allowed to use that against Noor in court because he has a constitutional right not to make any self-incriminating statements.
But prosecutors argue that they can use a defendant's pre-arrest silence if the defendant was under no government-imposed compulsion to speak.
"In sum, the defendant had a choice on whether to tell his side of the story during a voluntary interview in a non-coercive setting," prosecutor Amy Sweasy wrote. "His decision not to do so is relevant."

So we have a right not to speak, but if we exercise that right, our silence can be used against us. I believe that this defendant needs to be held accountable for his action of killing an innocent person, but this tactic of trying to use a person's silence against them by a prosecutor is troubling to me.

While they can use anything you say against you, the Fifth amendment protects you from being forced to provide testimony against yourself. Conversely, using your right to refuse to give statements, is also protected. It sounds like they are trying to do an end around on the Fifth amendment.
This guy needs to be prosecuted, in my opinion, but not at the expense of Constitutional rights. If they are able to do that, in this case, then it can be done to anyone. JMHO

[srothstein]

I beg to differ. Your lack of making a statement or cooperating in an investigation has always been legal to use in court, as far as I know. The Fifth Amendment forbids the government from compelling you to testify against yourself but I find nothing in the Constitution about them not introducing the lack of cooperation into any case.

We have a cultural thought process that says we should not do so and that doing so makes you guilty. After all, an innocent person would cooperate. This is why we always see statements from corporations and politicians that they are cooperating with the police.It is also why we see it as being used "against" them.

But haven't we here almost always advised to not cooperate and say nothing if you were involved in a shooting? Why would we advise that at the same time even if we think it was a justified shooting and you handled things right? This is what is known as cognitive dissonance - behaving differently than you think. Maybe we should either rethink our advice, or even better yet, work on breaking this cultural belief that saying nothing indicates guilt. Who cares if you cooperated or made a statement or not. The police should do their job and build a case properly.

[WildBill]

I beg to differ. Your lack of making a statement or cooperating in an investigation has always been legal to use in court, as far as I know. The Fifth Amendment forbids the government from compelling you to testify against yourself but I find nothing in the Constitution about them not introducing the lack of cooperation into any case.

I am not a lawyer and I'm stepping way outside of my expertise, but I would think that introducing this type "evidence" would be irrelevant and prejudicial and the defense would object to that line of questioning.

[talltex]

I don't have an issue with someone being investigated or charged refusing to make a statement or testify. I do have an issue with the other officers in the department stonewalling the DA's office and refusing to cooperate or speak to them.

[srothstein]

I beg to differ. Your lack of making a statement or cooperating in an investigation has always been legal to use in court, as far as I know. The Fifth Amendment forbids the government from compelling you to testify against yourself but I find nothing in the Constitution about them not introducing the lack of cooperation into any case.

I am not a lawyer and I'm stepping way outside of my expertise, but I would think that introducing this type "evidence" would be irrelevant and prejudicial and the defense would object to that line of questioning.

I certainly can agree that the defense lawyer should object on those grounds. I was just pointing out that it would not be on the grounds of having a right for that to not be introduced.

And hopefully, we can work on it not being prejudicial because everyone would say "So what?"

[srothstein]

I don't have an issue with someone being investigated or charged refusing to make a statement or testify. I do have an issue with the other officers in the department stonewalling the DA's office and refusing to cooperate or speak to them.

I agree with this also. The other officers not involved should be compelled to make statements. One of the interesting sidenotes about the Fifth is that it stops you from being compelled to testify against yourself. It does not stop you from being compelled to testify against anyone else.

[philip964]

From the juries I have been on if the defendant is planning not to testify, then this comes out in the jury selection process. You are usually asked if this would affect your decision on guilt or innocence, after being told about the right not to testify. If you feel it would affect your decision you are excused from the case.

[crazy2medic]

I don't have an issue with someone being investigated or charged refusing to make a statement or testify. I do have an issue with the other officers in the department stonewalling the DA's office and refusing to cooperate or speak to them.

I agree with this also. The other officers not involved should be compelled to make statements. One of the interesting sidenotes about the Fifth is that it stops you from being compelled to testify against yourself. It does not stop you from being compelled to testify against anyone else.

I Agree and had I been officer Noor's partner I would be none too happy about him putting a round past my head!

[philip964]

https://news.yahoo.com/latest-noor-jury ... 02764.html

6 people of color seated on the jury of 12 plus 4 alternates.

The police officer is Somali - American. The victim who was killed is Australian - American.

Rather than color I think religion may be more important.

People of color is an interesting concept. If your looking at skin color. No one is “white”, no one. Everyone’s skin has color.

[WildRose]

Good to see MN step up and prosecute.
However, I don't want him spending the next 10 to 20 years living off the taxpayers while in US prison. Strip him of US citizenship and send him back to Somalia.

Yessir, works for me. This was disturbing when I parsed the various news reports.

That can be done but only within 7 years of the swearing in. It's awfully rare for it to be done absent a clear fraud being found in the application process.

[philip964]

https://news.yahoo.com/officer-advised- ... 13022.html

Police advice after a shooting, keep mouth shut.

[Grumpy1993]

Cop who shot bride-to-be from inside his squad car was breaking rules ALREADY by not switching on his bodycam as soon as he arrived at scene