As regular readers know, not only was Mohamed Noor convicted, Minneapolis has agreed to a record obliterating civil suit settlement of $20 million dollars. There is still some legal wrangling to be done, and Noor’s sentencing is scheduled for June 7.
Barack Obama, and his racist Attorney General Eric Holder, inflicted great racial damage on the nation, damage that will surely take generations to repair, if it does not first contribute to civil war. Powerline’s Scott Johnson wrote to Bob Bennet, the attorney representing Justine Damond’s family. Bennet is the “go to” lawyer in Minnesota when it comes to suing the police. Johnson’s comments:
I covered the Noor trial right behind your assigned seat and right behind Justine’s family. I wonder if you can tell me whether the stay would have been lifted following the guilty verdict or would have continued through an appeal. I also wonder whether you think the prospect of discovery in addition to the guilty verdict affected the settlement.
Congratulations on the settlement. I am disgusted that the powers that be in the city cannot bring themselves to say that race didn’t have a goddamn thing to do with the settlement. You may recall you told me last July right after you filed the complaint that it was the most egregious excessive force case you’d seen in 38 (now 39) years, but they won’t say it.
Bennett responded, and alluded to a racialist NYT story (more on a more recent NYT story shortly):
The USMJ [i.e., United States Magistrate Judge Tony Leung, who had granted the stay in the civil lawsuit] was already considering whether to lift the stay earlier than planned originally, probably because Noor testified.
Our discovery would have been broader, deeper and more painful than the prosecutor. I would judge that had an impact.
Evidence and lots of it, not race, was the determining factor. Can’t explain that to the New York Times who asked [‘civil rights lawyer and activist in Minneapolis,’ according to the Times] Nekima Levy now Armstrong instead of me.
As I’ve written from the beginning of this case, the evidence of Noor’s deadly incompetence, and the City’s diversity-crazed negligence, was overwhelming, and there was nothing to counter it. The only way one might realistically say race was involved was in the policies of Minneapolis that valued race over qualifications, psychological suitability for the job and competence. Mohammed Noor wore a badge and gun because he was black, Somali, an immigrant, and perhaps because he was Muslim, and Justine Damond paid the price for that Minnesota not-nice Leftist virtue signaling.
One need only google “Mohamed Noor” to find scores of media assertions of rampant racism in the Noor case. Some grudgingly admit Noor was guilty, but RACISM! This one actually blames the NRA and President Trump:
Each person has a role to play as we face this growing culture of fear. We can choose to fuel it with support from the NRA and the White House, or we can choose to douse it by reaching on across racial lines in our common search for justice.
Now comes one John Eligon in a New York Times race-baiting article, published on 05-03-19. Note the teaser:
[For more coverage of race, sign up here to have our Race/Related newsletter delivered weekly to your inbox.]
While many in the community said Mr. Noor should have been held accountable, they could not help but wonder what the outcome would have been if the races of the officer and the victim had been flipped.
‘This is an anomaly based on the race of the officer, and the race and affluence of the victim,’ said Nekima Levy Armstrong, a civil rights lawyer and activist in Minneapolis. ‘The system treats African-Americans and white people differently, whether they are the victim in a police-involved shooting case or whether they are the police officer. This is absolutely outrageous.’
Even as activists and community leaders said that Ms. Ruszczyk deserved justice and expressed their condolences for her family, the verdict raised uncomfortable questions about the racial dynamics of the case.
To which “community” does Eligon refer? Surely to the radical Black community, and the Social Justice Warrior community, but all are encompassed by the anti-American, anti-rule of law, Leftist “community.” What about the American community? Such questions could be raised only if one were a race hustler, and entirely ignored the evidence presented in the trial, and/or were willing to lie about it, which Eligon is.
The only difference is that the officer involved in the shooting in this case happened to be a black Muslim immigrant, and the deceased person is a Caucasian lady,’ said Waheid Siraach, a former police officer and a founder of the Somali-American Police Association. ‘People can put the two and two together.
In this case, two and two equals racism only if one wishes to pursue social justice, not the rule of law. Siraach’s assertion is itself racist. If one were to read only Eligon’s account of the case, they would be grievously misinformed:
Ms. Ruszczyk, who sometimes used the last name of her fiancé, Don Damond, had called the police late one night in July 2017 to report hearing what sounded like a woman in distress in the alley behind her house. Mr. Noor and his partner were in their squad car in the alley investigating when Ms. Ruszczyk approached.
Mr. Noor, 33, testified during the trial that he had heard a bang and had fired one shot from the passenger’s seat when Ms. Ruszczyk appeared at the driver’s side window.
That’s it. Of course, when the only issue is black vs. white, facts only get in the way of the proper social justice outcome. Eligon helps to perpetuate an eternal lie in the vein of Trayvon Martin’s Skittles and hoodie, and Michael Brown’s “hands up; don’t shoot”:
Prosecutors seemed to imply at one point during the trial that Ms. Ruszczyk’s appearance should not have been threatening.
Her whole blonde hair, pink T-shirt and all, that was all threat to you?’ Amy Sweasy, an assistant county attorney, asked Mr. Noor during cross-examination, according to The Star Tribune.
As I’ve previously written, the context was very different than Eligon’s smear. The Defense strategy relied in large part on suggesting it was very dark in the alley, therefore Noor was somehow not expected to be sure of his target before shooting, and because there was a noise, perhaps Damond slapping the police vehicle, Noor was justified in shooting her. It was all just a understandable, tragic accident to which Damond largely contributed by daring to actually approach a police vehicle in a reckless attempt to speak with the officers.
That this was actually the heart of the Defense case demonstrates just how overwhelming the evidence against Noor was. Not only did Noor testify he could clearly see Damond, and that he never saw her hands—he actually testified that her mere presence was a deadly threat!–he testified he saw her blonde hair and pink t-shirt. Sweasy was merely clarifying that there was more than enough light in the alley for Noor to be sure of his target before shooting, and that no reasonable person, no reasonable police officer, could have taken an unarmed woman, barefoot, in her pajamas, carrying only a cell phone–which Noor never saw–for a threat. There was no suggestion of race in Sweasy’s cross-examination. She expertly clarified Noor’s own words, and his total lack of competence, which caused Damond’s death. The most reasonable interpretation of the evidence presented about the “slap,” was it was made up by the police to try to justify the murder of Damond.
As one might also expect, CNN is also determined to keep the racial pot stirred:
The prosecution countered with a critical question that seemingly said it all: ‘What is threatening about blond hair and a pink T-Shirt?’ And with that said, we as a society must address the elephant in the room: Race. Officer Noor is an African American man. Ms. Ruszczyk, the victim, was a white woman from Australia.
Actually, Noor said it all. Having seen no actual threat, being in no actual danger, he killed Justine Damond. Prosecutor Sweasy merely helped clarify his deadly incompetence for the Jury, one of who explained they all knew Noor was guilty. Most of their deliberations had to do merely with determining which statutes best applied to the facts of the case.
Every police shooting, like other cases, turns on its own set of facts. Those facts are often varied and murky. But despite the factual inconsistencies in some police shooting cases, there is generally one constant: the lack of accountability for the officer firing the weapon. Not in this case. Here, there was an indictment, a prosecution and a guilty verdict. So here’s the obvious question: did the race of the officer and the victim play a role in the outcome? What are the moral questions involved in the prosecutor’s invoking the victim’s “blondeness” to imply she posed no threat?
How and why is it that Noor was convicted?
I’ll answer those questions: race played no role–none. There are—other than murder–no moral questions involved. CNN is assuming facts not in evidence and erecting a totally false premise: everything is racism, and it’s always the racist’s burden to prove they’re not racist, which is impossible because all accusations of racism cannot possibly be wrong. Noor was convicted because the facts were not at all “varied and murky,” but crystal clear. He was guilty, and there was no evidence to the contrary. No rational person actually viewing the trial, and/or reading the trial transcript could come to any other conclusion.
But while revamping police procedures and training, we need to also revamp our cultural attitudes. Yes, police must be held accountable for their unlawful transgressions. No one can ever be above the law. But the law must apply with equal force to police officers of every color and origin. Similarly, the way in which jurors evaluate these tragic police shootings should never turn on the color of a victim’s hair or skin. Instead, the critical inquiry must continue to be whether the officer reasonably perceived a legitimate threat to his or her life. And that must always be a color-blind assessment.
The author of the CNN article will be glad to learn that the Noor case did not turn on the color of the victim’s hair and skin, and that it was, in fact, an entirely “color-blind assessment.” One might reasonably expect them to actually know the facts of the case before writing about it, and to present them completely and honestly, but that is obviously too much to ask. Facts tend to get in the way of a social justice narrative. Note how The NYT and CNNhave twisted themselves into pretzels defending a police officer–they hate the police–only because they could try to use his trifecta of preferred victim characteristics–color, immigrant, faith–to their social justice advantage.